NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Comments on two aspects of this: 1. Metadata The GML 3.1 and earlier treatment of metadata - using the gml:metaDataProperty element - turned out to be rather too onerous/tricky for the developers of application schemata where they wanted to use an existing metadata schema, which is not derived from GML. The GML pattern required a GML "wrapper" for eveything, in addition to the metaDataProperty element. After going around the issue a few times, the GML 3.2/ISO 19136 approach was to instead add a "flag" that may be shown on any property element to indicate that it is metadata. So I would not recomment designing anything now on the basis of the GML 3.1 patterns since they will be superseded in GML 3.2. 2. coverage "domain". I have discussed the matter of generalizing the coverage domain with the ISO 19123 editors and others. The story I got was that the ISO Coverage model is specifically *not* a general purpose map. It is specifically a map with a spatio-temporal domain, because the intention is to target spatio-temporal processes and processing. Of course everyone recognises that Coverages defined in this way are simply special cases of general maps. So the questions I thinka re raised by this discussion are (i) is the GML implementation of Coverage canonical? (ii) should WCS be modelled as a special case of a "map" or "function" service? Simon
galeon archives: