NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active.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.
Ben, I planned to attend the OGC TC meeting in Spain; I would be very pleased to contribute to the discussion. Indeed, to discuss about feature, coverage and O&M views of scientific data is an important subject. I tend to agree with Andrew on the possibility to revamp the arguments started at the Interop Day in Boulder. I guess the workshop presentations are still available on the GALEON Web site. Another place where many interested parties would be collocated is EGU. --Stefano
I think it's a good time to have this discussion. Just to put my stake in the sand - I think all these protocols are important and have their place in different scenarios. The key (as always) is the underlying information model - I tried to make this argument in a presentation at the Interop Day in Boulder a while back. For CSML, conformance with O&M has always been of fundamental importance - the CSML feature types are specialisations of the O&M Sampling Features. I've also argued in the past for a simple pattern in the case of sampling features that makes it all fall into place for the majority of our kind of data - for Sampling Features, the Observation result is a coverage. The different protocols are suited to serving up different parts of the information model. Look forward to the discussion in Spain! Regards, Andrew
galeon archives: