NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi all, _From my point of view, this has been an excellent and productive discussion in a topic area that I've found difficult to fathom since I became involved in the OGC. But, it's been very far reaching and I'd like to propose that we break it up into sub-topics that might fit better into different email lists and discussion groups. 1. GALEON I.E.: Since the discussion started in the GALEON context, I'll start with my idea for the GALEON topics that fit in as part of an interoperability experiment: -- Starting with the kinds of CF-netCDF coverages we worked with in GALEON 1, does it make sense to represent those coverages in GML encodings such as ncML-GML, CSML? Given that approach, is it practical to represent all the data in the GML or should the payload still be binary encoded in CF-netCDF or perhaps GML-JP2K? And given that approach, should the data be served via WFS as well as WCS? -- For collections of stations observation data taken over time (time series of data taken at a large number of fixed points in space, such as weather stations or river gaging stations), does it make sense to represent those as discrete grid point coverages? If so, how should they be encoded and served? To me these are important areas of practical experimentation for GALEON 2 and I plan to put them onto the agenda for our next GALEON telecon. 2. OCEANS I.E.: The issue of the relationship between the coverages of GALEON 1 and SWE/SOS could be addressed as part of the Oceans interoperability experiment. Certainly the output of weather forecast models is of interest to the ocean sciences. Can the CF-netCDF encoded coverages of such datasets be served via SOS to that community of clients? My respectful suggestion is that the Oceans I.E. consider this as a part of the experiment. Since I'm part of the Oceans IE, I'll see if there's time to broach the subject at that telecon later this morning. 3. ARCHITECTURE?: Much of the theoretical, abstract level discussion of what are the fundamental data objects we are dealing with and how the data and metadata access protocols relate to one another seems to me to be a question of overarchihng architecture and should be taken up there. But, since I'm not part of that group, I leave it to others to decide how to mov e forward on those issues. Of course, these abstract discussions will be grounded by the practical experiences gained in the interoperability experiments. 4. OTHER: Aspects of the interaction have touchs on topics that relate to coverages in general, catalogs, etc. and one hopes those facets of the discussion will be carried to the appropriate working groups so that we can all continue our focussed efforts while remaining aware of the bigger picture issues of how our work fits with that of others. Many thanks to all for a wonderful discussion. I hope it continues to flourish as a set of lively interactiions on the sub-topics as well as a set of practical implementations and experiments for each of the key components . I should add that I have no real objection to continuing the interactions here, but I'd like to make sure that some of these specific topics be taken up in the appropriate groups. -- Ben
galeon archives: