NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active.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.
Ron Lake wrote:
parsing XML is "trivial", as you point out, meaning we have lots of nice parsers that do all that for you. But "understanding" GML is non-trivial, to say the least, meaning that the semantics are quite complex, eg judging by the size of the document(s).Hi John: Surely the GML encoding is going to be simpler to parse and "understand" than any equivalent binary encoding. R
parsing binary netCDF is a bit harder, though again we have some nice libraries that already do it for you. Writing your own parser, however, is only a few hundred lines of code, more or less what i mean by "maximally simple".
"understanding" netCDF is much simpler than GML, as there are only 4 or 5 objects in the UML. "understanding" CF Conventions is much more complicated, of course, but arguably easier than GML, partly because the scope is much narrower.
<tangent>IMO, using XML Schema to describe a data model is really painful. although I understand why its done when you want to describe an XML language like GML (I do it myself). But I think its unfortunate, and obscures the model with the representation. </tangent>
galeon archives: