We brought KML into the OGC . . .
And there are other organizations interested in bringing legacy spatial
encodings into the OGC. There are sound business and policy reasons for doing
so. Providing long term stability within a community - including
interoperability - is one reason. Another is protection of legacy investments.
And one needs to consider the scope of implementation and knowledge associated
with legacy encodings such as NetCDF. Finally, one needs to consider policy
statements, such NOAA this year mandating NetCDF as the intermediate file
format for all STAR and OSDPD product systems.
I would strongly encourage the group to schedule a discussion (teleconference
or in Darmstadt) to determine the best go forward. Consider all aspects and
requirements - cross domain interoperability is one requirement of many.
Carl Reed, PhD
CTO
OGC
----- Original Message -----
From: Robin, Alexandre
To: Max Martinez ; Ben Domenico ; Peter Baumann
Cc: Unidata Techies ; Unidata GALEON ; wcs-2.0.swg ; Carl Reed
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:01 AM
Subject: RE: [WCS-2.0.swg] CF-netCDF standards initiatives
Ben,
I hope we don't have to define a NEW standard but rather work with you to see
how we can treat your use cases with SWE Common (which already incorporates
some NetCDF concepts and is VERY close to NcML).
I already looked at the issue and writing a converter (even the 'on the fly'
kind) between the two formats should be no problem at all.
Bringing legacy formats (be them pseudo-defacto standards of a community)
into OGC is NOT going to help interoperability across domains.
Regards,
-------------------------------------------------
Alexandre Robin
Spot Image, Web and E-Business
Tel: +33 (0)5 62 19 43 62
Fax: +33 (0)5 62 19 43 43
http://www.spotimage.com
Before printing, think about the environment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De :
wcs-2.0.swg-bounces+alexandre.robin=spotimage.fr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wcs-2.0.swg-bounces+alexandre.robin=spotimage.fr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
De la part de Max Martinez
Envoyé : jeudi 20 août 2009 03:19
À : Ben Domenico; Peter Baumann
Cc : Unidata Techies; Unidata GALEON; wcs-2.0.swg
Objet : Re: [WCS-2.0.swg] CF-netCDF standards initiatives
Ben,
What exactly is an "OGC binary encoding standard"? Is CF-netCDF attempting to
be the first of its kind or are there other examples?
Max
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wcs-2.0.swg-bounces+max.martinez=erdas.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wcs-2.0.swg-bounces+max.martinez=erdas.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ben Domenico
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:19 PM
To: Peter Baumann
Cc: Unidata Techies; Unidata GALEON; wcs-2.0.swg
Subject: [WCS-2.0.swg] CF-netCDF standards initiatives
Hello,
Some confusion has resulted from the fact that we are pursuing two parallel
efforts at standardizing CF-netCDF within the OGC.
The first initiative began a few years ago. The goal is to establish
CF-netCDF as an extension standard for WCS encoding of data in binary form.
Stefano Nativi just sent out an email announcing the latest revision of the
proposed "discussion paper" on that topic. This will be discussed and
hopefully voted on at the September/October TC meeting.
At the same time, we have a new initiative to establish CF-netCDF as a
separate OGC binary encoding standard. This approach will result in a
binary encoding which can be used with different access protocols, e.g., WFS or
SOS as well as WCS. Of course, in the long run, our objective is to tie the
two approaches together, but we do not want to impede progress on either right
now by making them formally interdependent. A very rough draft of the core
standard for CF-netCDF is on the GALEON wiki at:
http://sites.google.com/site/galeonteam/Home/cf-netcdf-candidate-standard
As you can see, the draft for the OGC core is based on the NASA Earth Science
Data System standard (NASA ESDS-RFC-011v1.00). We hope to have this candidate
standard in the proper OGC template form by the September/October TC and will
have an ad-hoc session at which we plan to establish a SWG. Since there is
already a large community of practice, endorsement by other standards groups
(NASA and NOAA in the US), and solid reference implementations, we hope to move
forward quickly with this standard.
We would very much like to have as many liaisons as possible between the WCS
and CF-netCDF working groups to ensure that they are kept in harmony.
-- Ben
