Dominic Lowe wrote:
Hi Jon, All,
I don't know if considering profiles of extensions is just complicating the
issue though...
I think the reality of the core + extensions approach means that we will
*have* to agree on supported combinations of extensions to achieve
interoperability.
i.e. agree to provide a WCS service which consists of:
Core + ExtensionA + ExtensionD and ExtensionF
So in that sense I think we need community profiles of WCS, but if it becomes
necessary to profile an individual extension (which is what I think you are
implying?), then I think the extension probably needs breaking down into
simpler more modular extensions.
i.e. I don't think we should be trying to define how to do interpolation or
subsampling within the WCS_NetCDF extension*. Interpolation should be a
separate extension.
i.e. it would be good to have this model:
Core + WCS_NetCDF + Interpolation
Rather than this one:
Core + WCS_InterpolationProfileofNetCDF
If the WCSNetCDF extension is in itself too complicated to implement (fully)
then that probably needs addressing at this stage before it becomes an
official OGC document.
Cheers,
Dom
*we're not, this was just an example!
Seems ok, though Im never sure of the real implications until ive seen some
concrete examples or implementations.
The thrust of my comments is to give us permission to solve all of the various
issues we need to make a viable server for our community. If I understand
correctly, core + extensions trades interoperability for this possibility.
There is still a hope that core + say, geotiff would be a good LCD (lowest
common denominator) to strive for.
