Vote Comment - 4 Lack of evidence that this proposal will be aligned

[chris-little]

"We are in principle not against adopting a community standard on JSON coverage encoding, and so our ’no’ is primarily due to the lack of evidence that this proposal will be aligned with existing standards and the working group structure in OGC. We underline that it should be avoided by all means that incompatible versions of related concepts (in this case ‘coverage’) evolve and strongly encourage that the discussion is held within the already existing SWG."

[chris-little]

0. Comments are being addressed in this repo by the CoverageJSON Task Team under the auspices of the Coverage SWG.

1. Work to tighten up the specification, without substantially changing it, is being developed by the originators.

2. A schema has been developed to ensure formal testing can be performed.

3. A detailed comparision with other Coverage payload formats, such as GeoTIFF and CIS JSON, has started to identify future developments of CoverageJSON within the OGC SWG framework with a target of convergence with OGC Coverages definitions.

4. There is currently no evidence that CoverageJSON deviates significantly from the ISO19123 abstract standard.

[chris-little]

Some of the encountered issues highlight the confusion over conceptual aspects of Abstract Topic 6 / ISO 19123 (conceptual) standard versus the logical model and the physical CIS JSON encoding defined in the CIS standard.

CoverageJSON Task Team 2022-02-09 agreed issue addressed.