Lastly back (?) to a discussion based on reasoning instead of emotions and face-saving activities.
1. The color data in the RAW is not as strictly defined. The spectral characteristics of the camera CFA are not included in the RAW data
The color data of the raw image is strictly defined by the spectral characteristics of the sensor and filters.
IMO it is irrelevant if the characteristics included in the file or not.
a. Let's assume, that we add an array per filter color to the raw file, describing the spectral responses in 1 nm steps, which is more than enough. Would the color information suddenly become a color space?
b. Billions of sRGB JPEG images do not carry any color space information in the file. Are their colors in a color space or not?
c. Is it enough to know, which color space applies to a given image, or is it necessaruy to include the color space's description in each file? A raw image file carries the identification of the camera, which implies the characteristics.
even if they were, choosing the best way to handle the mismatches between the CFA response and that of the human eye boils down to a judgment call, and no one method is always superior. The best we can do so far is to make an approximation that works in as many situations as possible, but there is no perfect method yet
In other words your definition includes the requirement, that there be the knowledge in public domain, how to do the best transformation. Fair enough.
Btw, the claim that
no one method is always superior is unsupported.
The RAW data must have a white balance assigned to it before any color conversion to LAB or a standard RGB editing space can occur. This is another judgment factor, and varying this can change the accuracy of the color conversion dramatically
What about an in-camera TIFF or JPEG with incorrect WB setting? What about the image after raw conversion with a WB setting, which has to be changed later? Do such images become "color space-less" suddenly?
Not only the nature of raw data is very different from what "colorimetric colour space" describes
The existence of the two distinct terms
color space and
colorimetric color space implies, that these are not the same.
No-one claimed, that (all) raw images are colorimetric.
Operations over the raw data that leave it in raw state is an oxymoron
Raw state is not a color space. However, for example
Canon 1DsMkIII raw image implies a color space (IMO). Many operations on the raw image leave that unchanged, for example white balancing, lightness adjustment, black point and white point setting.
Sensor changes its response substantially across its surface, and depending on the heat which is also non-uniform across the sensor and other elements in the pipeline. Some cameras include autocalibration to account for that, even changing white balance coefficients that go into metadata; some don't
This is supposed to be an argument for or against what?
in some we apply both white balance and gamma transform - and then go to demosaicing
Again, this is irrelevant, but I doubt it anyway ("gamma transform" before de-mosaicing). Though there is no limit of making something worse and worse.
