Ron-
answers inline:
Ron Lake wrote:
Peter, Ethan etc.
I think it is misleading to talk about everything other than the
coverage range values ("pixels") as metadata. Metadata only makes sense
when you say what you mean by Data. Then metadata can be ABOUT the
data. In the case of Coverages - we create a kind of object (i.e. data)
called coverage and then we can have information ABOUT that coverage
object - and this (creator, owner) is metadata.
as metadata are "about data" they actually can exist on any level - my
level's metadata may well be part of your level's data. From my
low-level pixel view ;-) I see all above the pixels as metadata,
upfront. A further distinction that I feel comfortable with is shown in
the picture attached. It allows for a technically motivated distinction
of the various levels.
In this view your metadata would be level 3 metadata.
Also, I don't like to think of XML encoding as a format since this
usually implies binding to a file organization/structure.
yes, of course - XML is describing a file format, isn't it? This
notwithstanding that for an XML document there may exist different
representations, such as ASCII and compressed (cf TIFF!).
-Peter
