Hi Jody,
there is a bit of confusion but I agree on the general statement, which seems to be let’s “splurge” for the first round and be more conservative in the long run.
The list of services for which we have to pay is the following mind:
- GeoPackage 1.2
- WMS 1.1.1
- WMS 1.3.0
- OGC API - Features 1.0
- WFS 1.1.0
- WFS 2.0
For GeoTiff we can be reference implementation and not pay.
I agree on the idea of paying on the latest for important services: WFS, WMS, Features.
GeoPackage wise… it’s mostly going to be for shows.
The GeoPackage test can inspect only a single GeoPackage, and we can certify based on a single run.
So the meaning of the certification will be only one of the following (I don’t know which one Peter used):
- Single table vector gpkg (topp:states, 4326)
- Multiple-tables vector gpkg (ne: countries and ne:disputed areas, 4326)
- Single table vector gpkg, with project CRS (sf:archsites)
- Single table raster gpkg (ne:countries png map tiles)
Picking just one of them is rather underwhelming, it’s a “sticker certication”.
(and mind, GeoTIFF is the same unfortunately, but at least we won’t pay for it).
For a comprehensive test in a single GeoPackage we’d have to use the gs-gpkg community module, I believe the WPS process in it can do multiple tables in various forms… however certifying based on something that’s not even supported is not great IMHO.
I’d favor an approach were we pay for what’s both important (user wise) and substantial (test wise) and then link to a document where we explain what we test, how we test, and the rationale behind the “implementing” bits.
Cheers
Andrea