Skip to content

Consider improved term references #231

@fmigneault

Description

@fmigneault

Any time a term like continous, categorical, (ir)regular grids, etc. are mentioned, which impose certain interpretability of the underlying data, users have to look up left and right what this actually means or where it can be located.

Given that the terms are repeated a bunch of times (e.g.: "grid" appears ~120 times in Coverages standard alone, not including cross-ref'd Core standard), finding their meaning is tedious.

It would really help if they were simply cross-ref'd to a single source of truth (which is not even clear which one it is?).

For example, make all "variable [type]" terms refer to
Table B.34 — Definition table of “OGC API — Common::VariableType” ()

I'm sure we could use asciidoc references to easily maintain all {{ref,the-variable-type}} links fairly easily from a single place and improve the overall interpretability of the standards.

Similarly, links to actual standards like ISO 8601 should be explicitly linked.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions