NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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.
Doug On 12/22/10 11:01 AM, Bob Simons wrote:
Some other issues to consider: * Where is the dividing line between a few missing values (where it's "okay" to say the values are evenly spaced) and too many missing values (where it isn't okay)? Some number? Some percentage? Does it matter if the missing values are adjacent or scattered? * getCapabilities purpose is to tell the client what is available. It is probably fine for a human to read that the data is evenly spaced (even if it isn't perfectly); humans are sometimes forgiving. But will there be problems if a computer program client expects (perfectly) evenly spaced values and requests data for those values? On 12/22/2010 9:47 AM, Ethan Davis wrote:Hi Rich, I've added this feature request to our list. Jon Blower might have some thoughts on this as well. One thing that I wonder about is client support. In particular, does Godiva2 support this? Again, a question for Jon. Ethan On 12/22/2010 6:00 AM, Rich Signell wrote:For getCapabilities requests, it would be great if the TDS would express the available times using the WMS multiple time interval syntax if it is more efficient than listing each time value separately. This can result in huge (100 or more) savings in the WMS getCapabilities size when dealing with model output, which is usually equally spaced, but perhaps with a few gaps. Instead of listing every available time step in ISO format, as is done currently In WMS 1.1.1, Annex C.3 states that multiple intervals are allowed in the "Extent" element. In WMS 1.3.0, Annex C.2 states that multiple intervals are allowed in the "Dimension" element. Both list the sample format: "min1/max1/res1,min2/max2/res2,..." (thanks to Kyle Wilcox for digging out this info) For example, we have a dataset http://testbedapps.sura.org/thredds/clean.html?dataset=estuarine_hypoxia/ch3d/agg that contains hourly output over 21 years (183984 time records) for 11 different variables. There are only 4 gaps longer than 1 hour. If you access the WMS getCapabilities document for this dataset, be prepared to wait for a while, because it's 51Mb!! The problem is that each time value is listed in ISO ASCII: <Dimension name="time" units="ISO8601" multipleValues="true" current="true" default="2006-01-01T00:00:00.000Z"> 1985-01-01T01:00:00.000Z,1985-01-01T02:00:00.000Z,1985-01-01T03:00:00.000Z,1985-01-01T04:00:00.000Z,1985-01-01T05:00:00.000Z,1985-01-01T06:00:00.000Z,1985-01-01T07:00:00.000Z,1985-01-01T08:00:00.000Z,1985-01-01T09:00:00.000Z,1985-01-01T10:00:00.000Z, ... which goes on for 5MB of ASCII values and then this whole mess is repeated for each variable "layer". Instead, the entire time record could be simply expressed using 5 intervals of the form: "1985-01-01T01:00:00.000Z/1988-12-31T00:00:00.000Z/PT3600S", "1989-01-01T01:00:00.000Z/1992-12-31T00:00:00.000Z/PT3600S", "1993-01-01T01:00:00.000Z/2000-12-31T00:00:00.000Z/PT3600S", "2001-01-01T01:00:00.000Z/2004-12-31T00:00:00.000Z/PT3600S", "2005-01-01T01:00:00.000Z/2006-01-01T00:00:00.000Z/PT3600S", Existing way (every time step written out): 51MB New way (specifying intervals): 100Kb (500 times smaller!!!!!) This would greatly reduce the file sizes on Motherlode, our IOOS testbed server, and every other TDS (or WMS, actually) with aggregated model output._______________________________________________ thredds mailing list thredds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
thredds archives: