decouple coverage and collection names, determine coverage type dynamically

[Peter Baumann]

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.

[Dimitar Misev]

We have discussed this quite a bit in #169 and documented in wiki:PetascopeDevGuide#MODIFIEDTABLES

[Peter Baumann]

indeed, great discussion there, have flipped through it now.
So seems with cmd line utilities there is no issue, this just means another parameter (or changing an existing one). How to solve this with WCS-T might remain an issue; maybe we have to introduce vendor-specific parameters.
Looking forward to syncing ideas on this issue with the petascope schema change proposals, so I'll discontinue discussion here for now.

[Dimitar Misev]

Has been addressed in 9.0, so closing as outdated.