NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Dear Keiran, thanks for chiming in. Responses inline: Keiran Millard wrote:
Dear Peter, Ben et al,I missed the teleconf today, but I really appreciated your classification document. I'd like to clarify something with the group on the scope of where we are going. Our key concern with WCS is not WCS per se, but the lack of standard serialisations for all the ISO coverages. Our main coverages (from numerical models) are 'irregular grids' and 'meshes' and our (corporate) lack of uptake of WCS as a technology is due to the fact that these aren't supported. I would like to support efforts to achieve some standardised encodings for other coverage types, but I'm not sure if this is the remit of this group. As far as I am aware OGC is planning support for irregular grids in GML, but there are no plans for meshes (?) I am aware that some groups are looking at NetCDF encodings for meshes, but this all seems to be below the radar.
we do know about this requirement. The need for more general coverage types has been discussed, eg, at the last TC WCS meeting; the WCS group is aware of it and intends to address it. It's very much a matter of resources, hence your offer to participate is most welcome.
On your last point (clients and servers) - I agree a key point; not just for visualisation clients but any processing client for the data from the server. I know this is something Andrew Woolf is also quite passionate about. Over many cups of coffee we have debated the concept of 'processing affordance' and how this can be implemented; our latest work looked at registries (Feature Type Catalogues - we were looking at Features) as a place to declare this relationship. Essentially "I am Feature X, these services exist that can deliver me and these services exist that can process me". This work was presented at the last OGC TC in the RWG by Kristin Stock.
agreed, registries are a great place for additional semantics and some larger context. However, I believe that each service needs to be self-contained enough to be operated in a meaningful way on its particular semantic level.
best regards, Peter
galeon archives: