SWG Response Comment SWG Response Comment SWG Response

This will provide an unambiguous way to refer to data-type identifiers using xlink:href instead of some unpredictable combination of codeSpace and value, and will encourage the use of previously registered datatypes which supports interoperability. If necessary, the UML model should be modified so that the type of this attribute is a codeListclass.

3.2 SWG Response

The resp. Part has been redesigned based on SWE Common; said issue does not occur any longer, hence this comment is obsoleted. 4 Comment 3 PART A 1. Evaluator: Peter Baumann 2. Submission: 09-110r2, WCS Core Interface Standard

4.1 Comment

PART B 1. Comment: 1 2. Implementation Specification Section number: Figure 1, Table 3, wcsCommon.xsd, accompanying text 3. Criticality: Major 4. Commentsjustifications for changes: ServiceParameters contains a component supportedFormatList. Intended use is, with some extension, to indicated the data formats in which coverages can be requested. However, this cannot be decided once and for all a priori: If slicing is applied in a GetCoverage request then the dimension of the result will change, and different formats can apply then. Example: a 3D cube cannot be encoded in JPEG, whereas a 2D GetCoverage slicing can. Hence, it is recommended to drop this item from the specification. Should it be kept than there is an item in the specification which cannot be used in the intended meaning and will be confusing at best. 4 Copyright © 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

4.2 SWG Response

Accepted, the modification suggested has been incorporated. 5 Comment 4 PART A 1. Evaluator: Stephan Meissl, EOX IT Services GmbH OGC member, stephan.meissleox.at 2. Submission: OGC 09-146, GML 3.2.1 Application Schema for WCS 2.0

5.1 Comment

PART B 1. Requirement: General 2. Implementation Specification Section number: General, 6 3. Criticality: Major 4. Commentsjustifications for changes: Add slot for specific metadata to be used in application profiles. In application profiles, as defined in OGC 09-153, WCS 2.0 Overview: Core Extensions Figure 1 and section 6.2, it will be necessary to expand AbstractCoverage with some domain specific metadata. We propose to include an empty element allowing xlink attributes by-reference pattern under AbstractCoverage with cardinality 0 or 1 optional. This can be used in application profiles like an Earth Observation Application Profile to mandatorily include a link to EO-GML metadata as specified in 0GC 06- 080r5, GML 3.1.1 Application schema for Earth Observation products.

5.2 SWG Response

Accepted; following some discussion, a proposal made by GML.SWG was adopted to have an even more general mechanism which allows to establish metadata of any type allowing both links and inlining. 6 Comment 5 PART A 1. Evaluator: Peter Baumann 2. Submission: WCS 2.0, in particular: GML 3.2.1 Application Schema for WCS 2.0 09- 146 Copyright © 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 5 Comment PART B 1. Requirement: General 2. Implementation Specification Section number: 09-146 whole document and schema 3. Criticality: Major 4. Commentsjustifications for changes: The new part of the coverage model, range structure, should be rephrased using SWE Common best in its most current version, 2.0, which is under vote as well. This greatly will increase harmonization level and, ultimately, help establishing one common coverage model across OGC hopefully SWE OM will embrace harmonization likewise and adjust to this common coverage model. If not done, SWE world will remain disconnected.

6.2 SWG Response