Consider adding a general "resolution" parameter ...

[pvretano]

@tomkralidis has already advocated for a resolution parameter for time but I think we should review the current set of core properties and see if a resolution parameter applies to any other core queryables. For example, a very common query would be querying data based on scale 1:10000 or 1:100000, etc.

[tomkralidis]

2 possibilities:

• pixel resolution (i.e. for raster data)
• scale (i.e. topo maps)

[cnreediii]

@tomkralidis I think adding "resolution", "scale" etc will be a really slippery slope. I did a quick Google search on scale, resolution, etc. Every definition was slightly different - some even equated scale and resolution. Others said resolution was only applicable to raster data. Oh boy. So, if Records has a resolution queryable, the first step would be to provide a clear and concise definition that the OGC membership agrees to. I the ISO glossary of terms. No luck. So this group would need to define a term and get OGC member agreement. Just sayin :-)

[m-mohr]

We tried this also in STAC and had a hard time, we are still not set yet. So I'd also recommend avoiding it in core. I also think for Records it's not necessarily core and could better be an extension.

[pvretano]

15-MAY-2023: @kalxas resolution might be coming from ISO so perhaps we should wait. @tomkralidis agrees. For now we agreed to park this issue.

[tomkralidis]

Moving this to the ISO19115 project.