RFC-5: Review 2b#
Summary#
The response to our previous review addresses our key concerns with the proposed spec changes. The addition of detailed sample data along with clear descriptions of the relationship between multiscales images and parent groups significantly improves the clarity of the RFC.
In particular, its requirements for parent transform input fields to specify the path to child images allows the traversal of the graph in implementations that don’t allow directory listings.
Minor comments and questions#
We are aware of a small number of outstanding issues with the RFC spec such as the formatting of relative paths but this does not prevent the adoption of the RFC.
The section “We have refined the statements regarding where (and how) coordinateTransformations can be stored” in the response to our previous review provides a nice overview of coordinateTransformations. The spec document would benefit from such an overview since the information there is currently spread in many places throughout the spec.
We feel that the importance of ordering of coordinateSystems correctly could be missed. If they are ordered incorrectly in a child image, some transforms and coordinate systems could be ignored when referenced by parent groups (if the “authoritative” coordinate system was accidentally listed 2nd and the “default” was first). Again, this is emphasized and made clearer in the coordinateTransformations overview section of the response to our review than it is in the spec.
Recommendation#
Adopt