SWG RFC Resolution Categories Tracking Number: RFC 011-B05 Accepts Evaluator Submission Requirement Section Criticality Accepts with Modifications Document Type Number X Accepts as Future Work Gregory Peele, Jr. / 8, 10, 13, Rejects with Reasons Applied Research 14, 65, 66, RFC submission is a comment or question with no call Associates, Inc. 67 Volume 1 1.7.2, 3.6.2 Major for Candidate Standard modification RFC Comment as submitted by Evaluator OGC CDB SWG Response / Comment / Modifications / Reasons Relates to Future work on alternative/multiple Coordinate Reference Systems The strict requirements for the WGS-84 horizontal datum CDB explicitly refers only to representing Earth. Expanding to other and vertical datum, plate carrée map projection, and heavenly bodies would be future work. specific tile and LOD layout present a variety of limitations that I’m sure have already extensively been Better polar cap representations should be future work. discussed in the SWG. To present a few that have come up in my actual simulation experience: it would be difficult, Greg’s comment: (Will accept deferral to next version) I knew this was for example, to instantiate a compliant CDB of any impractical for this version, just making a point and I know you will consider in planetary body other than Earth, ruling out space next version. exploration domain despite its similarities to the aviation domain. The tile scheme is also not well suited for polar simulation due to the singularities it induces. I’m aware that generalized tiling is an open discussion across multiple SWGs so I won’t belabor the point.
SWG RFC Resolution Categories Accepts Accepts with Modifications X Accepts as Future Work Rejects with Reasons RFC submission is a comment or question with no call for Candidate Standard modification Tracking Number: RFC 011-B05 Evaluator Submission Document Requirement Type Section Number Criticality Gregory Peele, Jr. / Applied Research Associates, Inc. Volume 1 8, 10, 13, 14, 65, 66, 67 1.7.2, 3.6.2 Major RFC Comment as submitted by Evaluator OGC CDB SWG Response / Comment / Modifications / Reasons Relates to Future work on alternative/multiple Coordinate Reference Systems The strict requirements for the WGS-84 horizontal datum and vertical datum, plate carrée map projection, and specific tile and LOD layout present a variety of limitations that I’m sure have already extensively been discussed in the SWG. To present a few that have come up in my actual simulation experience: it would be difficult, for example, to instantiate a compliant CDB of any planetary body other than Earth, ruling out space exploration domain despite its similarities to the aviation domain. The tile scheme is also not well suited for polar simulation due to the singularities it induces. I’m aware that generalized tiling is an open discussion across multiple SWGs so I won’t belabor the point. CDB explicitly refers only to representing Earth. Expanding to other heavenly bodies would be future work. Better polar cap representations should be future work. Greg’s comment: (Will accept deferral to next version) I knew this was impractical for this version, just making a point and I know you will consider in next version.