Tuesday, February 2, 2016

A Clarification - 1.1.0

"I have never been wrong BUT I have been known to clarify my position from time to time." - me
A few months ago I mentioned that I want to avoid substantive changes and a version 1.1 of the GeoPackage standard. It didn't quite work out that way so I would like to clarify what administrative, substantive, and critical changes mean in the context of standards development.
  • Administrative changes are changes to wording, grammar, and usage that do not affect requirements
  • Substantive changes alter requirements
  • Critical changes modify requirements in a way that make existing files invalid or would make valid files unusable on systems designed to work with the original version
As mentioned previously, we made a number of substantive changes in the new version. In general, the goal of these changes is to make the standard better - easier to read, less ambiguous, and more consistent. The OGC Architecture Board (OAB) determined that these substantive changes were sufficient to call this a minor release (1.1) as opposed to a point release (1.0.2). In response, I have updated all relevant text to identify the upcoming release as GeoPackage 1.1.

I am fine with this. What I really should have said in September is that critical changes are to be avoided. I still want to avoid a "GeoPackage 2" or even a "GeoPackage 1.3". The GeoPackage developer community is as adamant about this as I am, if not more so. This was never more apparent than in the discussion about the CRS WKT extension. It took more work to get this extension to the point that it was satisfactory. Maybe now we are where we need to be. If you don't think it is there, let us know.  I want to get this right.


  1. How can we access geopackage in windows universal application tool. I tried to load spatialite extension by calling connection.loadextension but it shows error. We are stuck in midway.

    Really appreciate for quick solution.

    1. The same code was working perfectly fine in WPF application.

  2. This is not the correct forum for this question. Please consider the geopackage mailing list at geopackage [at] lists.opengeospatial.org. Also note the following: