Le lundi 12 mai 2014 23:05:21, Jukka Rahkonen a écrit : > Even Rouault <even.rouault <at> mines-paris.org> writes: > > ... > > > > In light of this, it may be better to use an xml or textual > > > representation and embed it inside an XMP block, which is supported > > > for many formats[1]. Also it would allow for easier human-reading. > > > > Yes, that's one possibility. Which comes back to GMLJP2 unless there are > > other > > > standards... > > > > I'd want to build on something that is a "real" standard or a de-facto > > standard, but not reinvent everything from scratch. > > What GMLJP2 gives as a bonus is the axis order trouble and not totally > clear interpretation if origin is in the centre (probably it is) or in the > corner of a pixel, and rectified grid does not support ground control > points. Thus GMLJP2 is at least not better in everything, it has also > drawbacks.
Hi Jukka, Yes, for all your above reasons, I would prefer to avoid it. Although the axis order trouble (the one of EPSG) and interpretation of origin (pixel center) should be mostly clarified with the revised version. As far as ground countrol points are concerned, I've not really looked at the capabilities of GMLCov, so perhaps there's something in it for that. Otherwise, that would be indeed a drawback. > > -Jukka Rahkonen- > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev -- Geospatial professional services http://even.rouault.free.fr/services.html _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
