Übersicht:
Favoritenliste:
Favoritenseiten
| Ihre Favoritenliste enthält derzeit keine Seiten. Sie fügen dieser Liste Seiten hinzu, indem Sie im Menü Extras der angezeigten Seite Favorit selektieren. |
Seitenhistorie
...
| Chapter/Section (e.g. 3.1) | Paragraph/Figure/Table (e.g. Table 1) | Type of comment | Comments | Proposed change | Resolution | Kommentiert von (nur zur internen Verwendung) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foreword / 1.1 | 1st paragraph: Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [Directive 2007/2/EC], … / Table 2: SPATIAL DATA THEMES in Annex II of [INSPIRE Directive] | ed | Be consistent with other similar documents. | Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [INS DIR], … / SPATIAL DATA THEMES in Annex II of [INS DIR] | GDI-LSA | |
| 1.1 | 4th paragraph: This technical guidance shows how the operations required by the INS NS ... last paragraph: The Spatial Object Types defined in INS ISSDS that ... | ed | Put all references in square brackets. | This technical guidance shows how the operations required by the [INS NS] ... The Spatial Object Types defined in [INS ISSDS] that ... | GDI-LSA | |
| 1.2 | 3rd paragraph: … is included in the Generic Conceptual Model in 9.9.4 | ed | Use the correct name and add the reference. | is included in the INSPIRE Generic Conceptual Model in 9.9. [INS GCM] | GDI-LSA | |
| 2 | INSPIRE, Implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial datasets and services, INSPIRE Directive | ed | Work uniform with other similar documents (see e.g. Draft “Technical Guidance for INSPIRE Spatial Data Services and services allowing spatial data services to be invoked”). | INS DIR INSPIRE, Implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial datasets and services | GDI-LSA | |
| 2 | (all) | ed | Add missing references. | Add e.g. INS GCM, OGC 09-146r1, OGC WCS, ISO 19101 etc. | GDI-LSA | |
| 3.1 | (1) … conceptual schema for data required by one or more applications [ISO 19101] etc. | ed | Write all references in bold. | conceptual schema for data required by one or more applications [ISO 19101] | GDI-LSA | |
| 3.1 | (12) NOTE 2: The INSPIRE generic concept model document … (23) NOTE: … and in the INSPIRE Generic Conceptual model document is used synonymously with spatial object. [Note modified from INSPIRE Generic Conceptual model] | ed | Use the correct name. | The INSPIRE Generic Conceptual Model document … … and in the INSPIRE Generic Conceptual Model document is used synonymously with spatial object. [Note modified from INSPIRE Generic Conceptual Model] | GDI-LSA | |
| 3.4 | 2nd paragraph: For example, [INS NS] uses the abbreviated title for the document as shown below: INSPIRE Network Services Regulation, INS NS, COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1088/2010 of 23 November 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards download services and transformation services | ed | Be consistent with other similar documents (e.g. Draft “Technical Guidance for INSPIRE Spatial Data Services and services allowing spatial data services to be invoked”) | For example, [INS NS] uses the abbreviated title for the document as shown below: COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1088/2010 of 23 November 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 976/2009 as regards download services and transformation services | GDI-LSA | |
| 7.2.1.4 | TG Requirement 20: The response to a GetCoverage request with a least one subsetting operation… | ed | Replace a with at. | The response to a GetCoverage request with at least one subsetting operation… | GDI-LSA | |
| 7.2.1.5 | TG Requirement 23: The response to a ProcessCoverages request with a least one subsetting operation... | ed | Replace a with at. | The response to a ProcessCoverages request with at least one subsetting operation | GDI-LSA | |
| 1.2 | p.14, 1st paragraph: Coverage functions are used... | ed | Maybe the mentioning of "functions" is confusing for the general audience. | Check wording. | Peter Baumann | |
| 1.2 | p. 14, 2nd paragraph: ... properties of spatial object types where the type of the property value is a realisation of one of the types... | ed | Not sure people will understand this | Check wording. | Peter Baumann | |
| 1.2 | p. 14, 2nd paragraph: ... ISO 19123 | te | The 19123 coverage model is abstract, and, therefore, allows many non-interoperable concretizations. | Better refer to GMLCOV/CIS which is based on 19123 (too) and concise enough to be interoperable. | Peter Baumann | |
| 1.2 | p. 14, 3rd paragraph, 1st bullet point: ... a grid for which there is an affine transformation between the grif coordinates and the coordinates of a coordinate reference system (see figure 2, left). | te | This is high-level and abstract. | Add a stanza like "constant spacing along the axes". | Peter Baumann | |
| 1.2 | p. 14, 3rd paragraph, 2nd bullet point: a grid associated with a transformation that can be used to convert grid coordinate values to values of coordinates referenced to a coordinate reference system (see Figure 2, right). | ed | Maybe mention the grid is irregularly spaced? | Peter Baumann | ||
| 1.2 | p. 14, 4th paragraph: In addition, some themes make reference to the types TimeValuePair and Timeseries defined in Taylor, Peter (ed.), OGC® WaterML 2.0: Part 1 – Time series, v2.0.0, Open Geospatial Consortium, 2012. These provide a representation of the time instant/value pairs, i.e. time series (see Figure 3). | te | This is confusing, as coverages as well may contain time axes and (unfortunately) WaterML is not harmonized in any way with GMLCOV/CIS. | Peter Baumann | ||
| 1.2 | p. 14, last paragraph: Where possible, ... | This seems like a conclusion. | Shift it after the GMLCOV/CIS discussion below. | Peter Baumann | ||
| 1.2 | p. 14, last paragraph: ... these coverage types... | te | What does “these” refer to? WaterML != OGC coverages. | Peter Baumann | ||
| 1.2 | p. 15, last paragraph: ... extension to GML 3.2.1... | ed | Suggest, for clarification, “extension to the conceptual model of GML 3.2.1 which can be mapped to GML or any other suitable format”. | Peter Baumann | ||
| 1.2 | p. 16, paragraph below figure 4: ... GML coverage... | te | Can be any suitable format. | Drop “GML”. | Peter Baumann | |
| 3.1 | (5) coordinate reference systems Systems for uniquely referencing spatial information in space as a set of coordinates (x, y, z) and/or latitude and longitude and height, based on a geodetic horizontal and vertical datum[INSPIRE Directive] | ed | Systems for uniquely referencing spatial and/or temporal information in space as a set of coordinates (x, y, z, t) and/or latitude and longitude and height, based on a geodetic horizontal and vertical datum[INSPIRE Directive] | Peter Baumann | ||
| 3.1 | (6) coverage spatial object that acts as a function to return values from its range for any direct position within its spatial, temporal or spatiotemporal domain, in accordance with ISO 19123:2007 [INS ISDSS] EXAMPLE Orthoimage, digital[PB1] elevation model (as grid or TIN), point grids etc. | ed | (1) coverage spatial object that acts as a function to return values from its range for any direct position within its spatial, temporal or spatiotemporal domain, in accordance with ISO 19123:2007 [INS ISDSS] EXAMPLE Orthoimage, Image timeseries, digital elevation model (as grid or TIN), point grids etc. | Peter Baumann | ||
| 3.1 | (12) geographical grid systems NOTE 2 ... Thus, a 'geographical grid' is equivalent to an ISO 19123 coverage. ... | ed | Gridded coverage? | Peter Baumann | ||
| 3.1 | (12) geographical grid systems NOTE 2 ... The unqualified term 'grid' may refer either to a grid geometry or a geographical grid (coverage) depending on the context. | ed | For the reader’s understanding, what is the difference? | Add clarification for the difference between grid geometry and geographical grid (coverage). | Peter Baumann | |
| 3.1 | (13) GML coverage | ed | Should not contain “GML”, this has led to sustained confusion. | Drop "GML". | Peter Baumann | |
| 3.1 | (13) GML coverage ... subclass (specialization) of a Coverage ... | te | Not sure I can follow this, and hard to understand anyway. The term suggests a simple interpretation, which is consistent with OGC: a coverage encoded in GML. As such, I am not sure it is needed as a specific term, unless we define GeoTIFF coverages, NetCDF coverages, and the like as well. | Drop term (13). | Peter Baumann | |
| 3.1 | (17) range (of a coverage) ... feature attribute... | ed | Suggest to drop these words – it is not clear what they mean, and they are not necessary either. | Drop "feature attribute". | Peter Baumann | |
| 3.1 | (20) spatial data, NOTE | te | Very much agreed with the NOTE. Does it include temporal? | Peter Baumann | ||
| 3.1 | (21) spatial data services operations... | te | Service offers a set of operations, but is not an operation. Example: a WFS instance is not an operation. | Check wording. | Peter Baumann | |
| 3.5 | p. 23, 2nd paragraph, 1st bullet point: Updates to the Coverage Data Model (GML 3.2.1 Application Schema - Coverages version 1.0.1, OGC 09-146r2, becomes Coverage Implementation Schema 1.1). | ed | Replace "becomes" with "is advanced to" or similar expression. | Updates to the Coverage Data Model (GML 3.2.1 Application Schema - Coverages version 1.0.1, OGC 09-146r2, is advanced to Coverage Implementation Schema 1.1) | Peter Baumann | |
| 3.5 | p. 23, 2nd paragraph, last bullet point: SelectCapabilities extension to WCS core, being adopted | ge | Not sure about this, there are numerous reservations on this spec. Maybe we should not anticipate anything in this (normative) document. | Peter Baumann | ||
| 4 | p. 24, 1st paragraph | ed | Replace "exist" with "exists" and add a sentence to clarify the need of a WCS guidance. | Other Technical Guidance exists for describing implementations using other service interfaces such as for Atom Syndication Format, WFS, and SOS. However, only WCS allows extraction and processing of coverage subsets. This WCS guidance is based on the abstract model established in the INSPIRE Network Services Regulation [INS NS]. | Peter Baumann | |
| 4 | p. 25, Table 4, row 1 and 2 | ed | Not sure about meaning of this row 2: another service? Detailing of row 1 = headline? | Check and clarify. | Peter Baumann | |
| 4 | p. 25, Table 4, last row: "NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT" | te | Based on the explanation below, maybe it is better understandable to leave out this “NOT ABLE” and just state “By definition, if a service ….” | Drop "NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT". | Peter Baumann | |
| 4 | p. 25, paragraph below table 4: ... Conversely, when a service has access to a live database (for example one in which coverage data is being continuously updated), ... | te | Maybe the differentiating criterion is not “file vs database” – a file can just as well be updated regularly. | Leave out file/database exemplification. | Peter Baumann | |
| 4 | p. 26, figure 5: Each file has it's own spatial data set identifier; Each coverage has it's own spatial data set identifier | ed | Replace "it's" with "its". | Each file has its own spatial data set identifier; Each coverage has its own spatial data set identifier | Peter Baumann | |
| 4 | p. 26, paragraph below figure 5: ...a coverage can be mapped to the term spatial object. | ed | A very abstract view – maybe innocent readers understand this wrong. | Check and clarify. | Peter Baumann | |
| 4.3.1 | p. 32, example 2 | ge | Should this document maybe support best practice and adhere to the conventions of upper case for the parameter names? I know, some implementations are lax, but IMHO being a standard it should stick with the regulations. | Peter Baumann | ||
| 5.1 | p. 35: OGC 09-146r2, OGC® GML Application Schema for Coverages, version 1.0 | ge | For all standards referenced, suggest to use just major version number. Reasons:
| Use just major version number for all standards referenced. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 35: OGC 09-146r2, OGC® GML Application Schema for Coverages, version 1.0 Conformance classes used:
| te | This seems to express that only GML encodings are wanted. | Add further classes, such as other-format (allowing binary formats like GeoTIFF) and multipart (GML header + binary format). | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 35, TG Requirement 1: Implementations shall conform to OGC 09-110r4 Conformance Class ‘core WCS’ | ge | Recommend to not use concrete document numbers, better reference the version desired (reasons, see above). | Reference the version desired. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 35, paragraph below TG Requirement 1 | ed | Rephrase paragraph. | The WCS core specification specifies the core operations required to be implemented by any WCS, remaining agnostic of the request encoding; protocol bindings are WCS extensions. This way, functionality and encoding are separated. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 35, 2nd paragraph below TG Requirement 1: Two protocol bindings are currently supported by WCS 2.0: | te | Three bindings, actually: GET, POST, SOAP. REST is under preparation. BTW, you list only one. | Replace "Two" with "Three" and add missing bindings in the list. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 35, 3rd paragraph below TG Requirement 1: Note that the XML/SOAP Protocol Binding Extension specification in addition to conforming to WCS core also conforms to the following classes: | te | Do the others not conform to OWS Common 2.0? Is there any source for this statement? | Check and clarify. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 36, 1st paragraph: Conformance classes used:
| te | Trying to interpret this I think it wants to say: “INSPIRE WCS Download Services use the following protocol bindings”. If so, shouldn’t this be a formal requirement? (if it is about WCS SOAP, that has only 1 class) | Check and clarify. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 36, 2nd and 4th paragraph | ed | Drop "this". | Support for the | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 36, 2nd paragraph: OGC 09-147r3, WCS 2.0 Interface Standard – KVP Protocol Binding Extension, version 1.0 | ed | This formatting is very confusing. Only late I understood that the paragraphs below go _under_ this bullet. Indentation might help. | Check and change format. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 36, paragraph above TG Requirement 2: You must support... | ed | Replace "You" with "An implementation". | An implementation must support... | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 36, paragraph above TG Requirement 2: ... you should note that it is the XML/SOAP binding that is proposed for the ISO coverage service implementation. | te | Caveat: only informal discussion currently, no concrete ISO opinion stated. | Check and rephrase, if applicable. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 36, TG Requirement 2: Implementations shall support at least one of the two supported protocol bindings (KVP or POST/XML) | ed | Replace "supported" with "WCS" | Implementations shall support at least one of the two WCS protocol bindings (KVP or POST/XML) | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 36, paragraph below TG Recommendation 4: GMLCOV is already included as part of WCS core, i.e. if you make a GetCoverage request and don’t specify any output format the range set will be delivered in XML. | te | No, a coverage is delivered in its Native Format, whatever this might be. CAVEAT: GMLCOV is not GML! | Check and rephrase. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1 | p. 37, Table 14 | ge | Based on the points made in the table, why not establish a recommendation for say JSON for 1D; TIFF for 2D; NetCDF for 3D, 4D? Or maybe tie format recommendations to the Annex themes? As it stands, clients might have a hard time confronted with the myriads of format choices. | Peter Baumann | ||
| 5.1.1 | p. 37, Example 5 | ed | Drop "&". | http://myserver.ac.uk/some/folders/ows?service=WCS&request=GetCapabilities | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1.1 | p. 38, Example 7 | ed | Drop "&". | AcceptVersions=2.0.1,2.0.0 | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1.1 | p. 38, Example 8 | ed | Drop "&". | AcceptLanguages=sk,en,* | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1.1 | p. 39, TG Requirement 4: When using either the XML/POST or GET/KVP protocol bindings, the name ... | te | Language is not contingent on protocol, so why not remain generic so that future extensions will not need to touch this. | Drop "When using either the XML/POST or GET/KVP protocol bindings,". | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1.1.2 | p. 40, last paragraph: ... it is up to the implementing Member State to decide... | ge | Is this special for this choice? Why not implementing institution, for example? | Check and rephrase, if applicable. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1.1.2 | p. 44, TG Requirement 6: A network service [Download Service]... | ed | Drop "network service". | A Download Service ... | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1.1.3 | p. 48, paragraph below Example 12: A service supports French and English and the service default language is French | ed | Strange sentence, maybe incomplete? | Check and rephrase. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1.2 | p. 50, Example 16 | ed | Drop "&" in the last row. | CoverageId=glasgow_bron_t,glasgow_bron_b | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1.2 | p. 50, Example 17 | ed | Drop "&" in the last row. | AcceptLanguages=en,* | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1.3 | p. 51, 1st paragraph: ... response to an envelope (or “bounding box”), ... | te | Caveat: “envelope”, as inherited from GML, does not need to be the smallest bbox. | Peter Baumann | ||
| 5.1.3 | p. 51, 3rd paragraph: The coverage data provided in the response to such a GetCoverage request is supplied in the native coordinate reference system, ... | te | Plus, bbox is expressed in the coverage’s Native CRS, unless WCS CRS extension parameters are used. Maybe this should be mentioned for completeness. | Check and rephrase. | Peter Baumann | |
| 5.1.3 | p. 51, Example 20 | ed | Drop "&" in the last row. | CoverageId=glasgow_bron_b | Peter Baumann | |
Überblick
Inhalte
Aktivität