decouple coverage and collection names, determine coverage type dynamically
|Reported by:||pbaumann||Owned by:||abeccati|
|Keywords:||Cc:||dmisev, abeccati, pcampalani|
This is a small issue leading to a big one:
First, petascope should allow more coverages in one rasdaman collection. Currently, the collection name is derived from the coverage name, and the target colleciton can hold only one MDD. One immediate problem is that coverage names are constrained to colleciton name syntax; a more serious one is scalability: in face of millions of coverages we cannot have just as many tables/collections.
Second, as coverages are untyped in OCG there is no way to determine the appropriate target (MDD type and) collection. The coverage type (Rectified, Referenceable) is way too coarse; subtypes still are too lax (eg, these types allow different domain dimensions and range types, something incompatible to rasdaman, and generally error prone).
The latter issue will become hot at the latest when WCS-T is getting established. But already now we need to resolve it. No clear idea, though.