Mike wrote:
One last point is that I think the separation of Features into GML and
Coverages into formats such as GeoTiff, HDF,and NetCDF have been centered
around the need for highly efficient storage mechanism for coverages. I
truly feel that the approach taken with SWE Common data definitions provides
the best of both worlds: to have the machine understandable, robust
description of data provided by XML/GML and to allow the packaging of large
amounts of data values in efficient ascii or binary blocks (or streams).
Ron wrote:
[RTL] Efficient storage mechanisms are fine for the implementations but
should NOT cloud our discussion of the interfaces.
Mike Responds:
I agree. However, the reason I bring this up here is that the data packing
issue HAS influenced the the directions that we have taken at OGC, as well
as influenced how we chose to view the problem.
