[Geotiff] How can users participate in additions to the current GeoTIFF spec leading to the next official specification?

[Daniel Denk]

What's the story behind the multi-layered data that can be allowed in
Geotiff 2.0? The NASA project (JPL?) that I read about, I assumed, was
making this a capability?
 I can only imagine what can be done with multi-layered Geotiffs. The GIS
serves as the glue, while the imagery 'product' can serve as the 'database'.
Not to mention, I gather that registrations would be interestingly more
accurate within datasets, layer to layer - or so one would hope that this
would be the workflow or approach toward building multiple-layered /
multi-informational datasets.
 The caveat however, is that no one in the compression market seems to be in
key with multiple-layered / multi-informational sets such as I describe. But
it would make for a very well-rounded provision for most who are providing
data to clients, and when those clients specify a range of data that would
otherwise have to be delivered per set and not as an all-in-one solution.
 Just some thoughts... Not positive if it applies here.

 On 11/17/05, Niles Ritter <ritter at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 19:04 -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> > On 11/7/05, Nagle, Gail A (US SSA) <gail.nagle at baesystems.com> wrote:
> > > As a member of the GeoTIFF user community, I am wondering how the next
> > > version of GeoTIFF will be adopted.
> >
> > Gail,
> >
> > The community standards group at NASA has asked me to submit
> > GeoTIFF 1.0 through their process. This would presumably give
> > a mechanism to later update the specification.
>
> I would venture to guess that POSC and EPSG are interested parties
> as well, given that the codes are part of their specification.
> Wonder if Roger Lott is still around...
>
> > I don't know too much about the GeoTIFF 1.5 proposal floated
> > out of JPL.
>
> I vaguely recall putting together an interim proposal that mostly
> were fixes, and some suggestions for capture accuracy ellipsoids
> and the like. A request for discussion I put out way back in 2000
> proposed discussing GeoKeys for data interpretation (e.g not all
> pixels are electromagnetic amplitudes, but could be elevation, etc),
> vertical datum, refreshing the EPSG database, etc. Some of the
> other 2.0 items were, in retrospect, ad-hoc things not worth
> pursuing that we cooked up at JPL, and some had to do with making
> GeoTIFF more friendly to facilitating the OpenGIS web map server
> interface specs.
>
> --
> Niles Ritter <ritter at earthlink.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geotiff mailing list
> Geotiff at lists.maptools.org
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/geotiff
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.maptools.org/pipermail/geotiff/attachments/20051118/27d666a1/attachment.html