US Library of Congress Recommended Formats Statement
Not sure if you're aware of the US LOC RFS, but it is a document here in the states that many look to for setting and determining standards for data storage, archival, and dissemination.
The current Geospatial and CAD segment, is in my opinion, a bit of a mess. Our dear friend GeoPackage is never once mentioned by name, nor even tangentially, much to my confusion.
Shapefile leads the recommended specs, but GPKG isn't even an acceptable. Furthermore, where are SQLite/Spatialite (which elsewhere LOC recommends for database artifacts)?
Raster is a little less black-box, but not much:
COG isn't mentioned, though IMO it should be, nor is a Geopackage-stored Raster, which even ArcGIS Desktop supports.
Vector+Raster is a bit more concerning:
Once again, Geopackage is an obvious omission, though they might be hinting at it in 3A/3B.
This document is currently maintained by one Miss Rachel Trent ([hidden email]). I was planning on writing her briefly to kindly express my concerns that Geopackage isn't more prominently recommended nor even listed as an acceptable format. I'm sure there is a process that was followed to vet the formats on this list, but I just can't reconcile the guidance document with what I know from practice and theory of the values of the different formats. Has anyone here been involved in this process or similar before? Am I perhaps just missing something obvious? To be clear, I'm not looking to hassle anyone or cause a fuss with this line of inquiry.
I don't know if you know anyone at OGC or elsewhere who might wish to lend their voice. Perhaps a statement or two from someone like Even Roult or Howard Butler (or others who worked to draft the Geopackage spec) would carry more weight than mine. Maybe even a friendly nudge from OGC? I'm not sure whom is most appropriate to ping with this type of thing, but I thought I'd reach out to you all regardless.