To me this proposal looks too complicated for practical application in it's current form. I think the surface model (or a "default" model) and related algorithms should be part of the proposal.
I needed to solve some of the problems they mention for our 3d rendering engine (store vector data of multiple projections in an indexed storage and separate vector storage, projection and visible projection when rendering) as well as for parallel data processing of large data sets. I found that systems which use ellipsoidal polygons on the surface model of the earth impractical for a variety of reasons: Image data and rendering systems mostly deal with rectangular tiles, there are commonly accepted (but not standardized) properties like zoom levels and tile sizes which many software adheres to, and also algorithm complexity and implementation effort. I ended up with an adaptation of the MODIS grid for our application (https://modis-land.gsfc.nasa.gov/MODLAND_grid.html) so that cells (which are equal area in MODIS) are of the same length as OSM / Web Mercator tiles (at the equator), also considering zoom levels. I think there is a real need for such concept, but in my opinion there needs to be a default model and algorithms in order to be relevant. Best Ben Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 31.10.2017 um 13:40 schrieb Roberto Ribeiro <robertofi...@gmail.com<mailto:robertofi...@gmail.com>>: I too took that understanding from the text, Ari. I'll read the specs later, but since they mention a lot Big Data and the raster <> vector integration, I it is akin to a geometry collection, but encompassing a wider range of data types, and arranged in a pyramid/r-tree -esque environment for faster processing. If so, it's not an entirely novel idea (Esri's File GDB is mostly that, as well as the entire CAD modelling), but one that would be interesting to have an open standard for. 2017/10/31 ??4:23 "Ari Jolma" <ari.jo...@gmail.com<mailto:ari.jo...@gmail.com>>: That also caught my eye. The text sounds a bit like marketing talk but maybe there is something. >From a quick look my understanding is that the idea is to create a grid that >divides the whole earth into cells of similar shape in a sequence of >increasing cell size. And that sounds to me like a new idea. Any other thoughts? Did I get the idea right? Best, Ari Helmut Kudrnovsky kirjoitti 29.10.2017 klo 01:16: Fyi http://www.opengeospatial.org/pressroom/pressreleases/2656 "The goal of DGGS is to enable rapid assembly of spatial data without the difficulties of working with projected coordinate reference systems. The OGC DGGS Abstract Specification standard defines the conceptual model and a set of rules for building highly efficient architectures for spatial data storage, integration and analytics. ....." ----- best regards Helmut -- Sent from: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/GDAL-Dev-f3742093.html _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
