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 AM
To: 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