Hi all,
let me chime in, as one of the WCS guys:
Roy Mendelssohn wrote:
Hi Ben:
If the netcdf encoding is just an extension (rather than at the core
of WCS), and if it is not supported by the larger WCS or OGC
community (ie. if most WCS clients or servers do not support it),
then it is not serving the purpose of providing interoperability
between communities, which would seem to be the purpose of this effort.
hm, WCS serves a range of communities, including remote sensing, sensory, and
metocean. I understand that each of these communities sees their part in the
core, but is this really necessary? why is it necessary for netcdf folks that
some pure remote sensing WCS instance supports netcdf, even if not used? My
naive understanding was that interoperability is relevant for functionality
that is used among the relevant players. I'm open to getting educated...
The GALEON effort has been very strong, and a lot of great work has
been done. But is this viewpoint supported by the larger WCS or OGC
community?
Just to mention, we have introduced a special "galeon corner" in our telecon
meetings where every month special time and attention is devoted to galeon issues.
Notably this is not the case for any other community, such as remote sensing - and none
of these complains.
Further, we greatly appreciate contributions like the netcdf encoding, which
will form an important part of the WCS core/extension cloud (and contributes to
coming up with generic data format encoding templates), and we have really
fruitful exchange on these issues (see our mailing list backlog).
The real issue IMHO is one about participation - we always invite stakeholders
to actively bring in their ideas, sometimes with success. Galeon is one such
focused initiative, with clear impact.
Recent decisions about WCS would seem to suggest not.
which one do you have in mind?
would return to my email of last week. Where in OGC land is there
something that is close in viewpoint to that of the metocean
community? IMO it is CSML - the mapping between CSML Feature Types
and Datatypes in the proposed CDM is very close. Rather than try to
force a harmonization on the WCS level,
The alternative is to end up with several incompatible standards. Yes, one of
them might fit metocean purposes perfectly - and then they will not be
interoperable with EO stuff, for example. I like the idea of having a common
service which unifies all coverage-related communities and will allow to be
interoperable not only within, but between communities.
That said, it certainly is a nontrivial task, and we still have some
considerable way to go to achieve that Holy Grail.
where the larger WCS community
does not appear to be interested,
If it appears like that, let me know how we have caused this impression - the
WCS.SWG definitely has a high (and documented) interest in the metocean domain.
why not work for closer
harmonization with CSML, with gateways and translators, and since the
CSML folk are heavily involved in OGC, use whatever OGC transport
layers/ service requests they develop for CSML as the ones that will
provide the bridge.
well, again a straight and (maybe too) naive thought: why not liaise
with CSML people to achieve some broader consensus and interoperability?
I'm not talking about merging all into one pot, but some coherence can't
be wrong...
my 0.02,
Peter
