NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active.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.
Hi Jon, My answer is inline.
*However*, if we see WCS primarily as a mechanism for exposing coverage *metadata* in a standard way (with describeCoverage() being the most important method) then things start making a lot more sense to me. Coverages are described, harvested and then discovered. The process of discovery reveals a method for grabbing actual data. If the client understands this method (which could be OPeNDAP or a JPIP stream) then data transfer can take place. The WCS-NetCDF mapping is then needed to show how NetCDF coverages can be described. Have I understood this correctly?
Yes, you have. Besides, we should implement/follow the ISO 19123/19115 data model to provide heterogeneous clients (users and systems) with a general and well-accepted semantics.
Regards,---Stefano
galeon archives: