Hello all,
> As I understood his suggestion, the general idea would be
> that CF and netCDF would be for binary data what GML and XML is for text
> data. To me this was a very innovative (if not radical) suggestion
So whould he try to change the media type to "application/cf+netCDF3" to
reflect his idea? I think this is a natural way of thinking, but last July I
thought it was not going to gain wide support in cf-metadata community.
--
TOYODA Eizi
On Sun, 10 May 2009 10:38:42 -0600
Ben Domenico <Ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At the US IOOS (Intgrated Oceans Observing System) DMAC (Data Management and
> Communications Subsystem) Steering Team meetings last week, a topic with
> important GALEON implications came up. Please note up front that this is
> all very tentative at the moment and very much in the "investigation" stage.
> But, with the next OGC Technical Committee meeting coming up in June, we
> should begin considering the pros and cons and other implications.
>
> David Arctur of the OGC suggested that we submit the CF-netCDF directly as
> an OGC standard. As I understood his suggestion, the general idea would be
> that CF and netCDF would be for binary data what GML and XML is for text
> data. To me this was a very innovative (if not radical) suggestion and
> questions arise whether this would involve the file format, the API, ncML,
> ncML-GML, CSML and possibly other facets related to CF-netCDF. In spite of
> the question marks, I think this is really worth some careful thought.
> Since the concept was so new to me, I asked David if there were any
> precedents that might serve as a template for how we might proceed. In
> response, he sent a list (appended below without any implied endorsement)
> which includes specification examples for file formats and for the APIs.
>
> Fascinating idea.
> .
> -- Ben
>
> =============================================
>
> Geographic Objects (GO-1) - this is a fine-grained API pushed by a federal
> agency, very little uptake, but it's an API that became an OGC standard.
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/go
>
> KML 2.2 - see what they did.
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/kml
>
> Simple Feature Access, Part 1: Common Architecture - this is an interface
> with different platform-specific encodings (COM, CORBA) and SQL access (see
> next two references for the most used platforms)
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfa
>
> Simple Feature Access, Part 2: SQL Option
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfs
>
> Simple Features for OLE/COM
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfo
>
> OGC Reference Model (ORM) -- this is the roadmap for OGC standards evolution
> and maturation; in your proposal for CF/netCDF describe how it fits in the
> roadmap.
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/orm (pdf & doc downloads from this
> page)
>
> Best Practices - index page (includes next two references below)
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/bp
>
> Binary XML (BXML) Encoding Specification, OGC 03-002r9 (Craig Bruce,
> CubeWerx)
> http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=13636
>
> Specification Best Practices, OGC 06-135r1 (Carl Reed) - This document
> describes a variety of Best Practices and Specification development guidance
> that the Members have discussed and approved over the years. These Best
> Practices have not been captured in other formal OGC documents other than
> meeting notes.
> http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=17566
>
--
TOYODA Eizi <toyoda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
