Re: [galeon] WCS core + extensions

[Peter Baumann <p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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