NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi, There should not be a "Coverage vs Feature" - and to equate Coverage with Raster and Vector with Feature is simply wrong. The ISO 19109 version of Featue, makes observations and coverages "features" - some of these features have discrete geometric representations, others are describe by continuous property distributions, some are observing acts etc. Some have properties which are combinations of all of these. Consider an observation feature such as the taking of tourist photograph (equally applies to a scientific measurement of practical salinity from a diving buouy) - it will have properties like location, time of observing, and result of the observing (in the photo case) will be a coverage (distribution)feature, and the target of the observation may be a monument (feature). Of course any assembly of observations (like a set of salinty measurements at different depths) can be seen as a coverage. The key thing about observations is that they are acts of observing - so that what results is not yet an "authorized" property value for anything. R
-----Original Message-----From: stefano nativi [mailto:nativi@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: May 9, 2007 3:28 AMTo: Woolf, A (Andrew); Ron Lake; Roy Mendelssohn; Ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Unidata GALEON Subject: RE: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights I agree with you, Andrew!We should avoid "mental barriers" like Raster Vs Vector, as well as Coverage Vs Feature (the new version of the same contraposition).In an interoperable Geospatial Information framework, Observation&Measurement, Feature and Coverage are different ways to see the same stuff (i.e. they are views). Different use cases may need to present users with a Feature view and access and process data using a Coverage view, or vice versa.--Stefano
galeon archives: