Re: [galeon] Simple CF-netCDF file WCS response?

• To: "Ben Domenico" <Ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: [galeon] Simple CF-netCDF file WCS response?
• From: "Jon Blower" <jdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:00:19 +0100

Hi Ben,

I haven't kept up with this discussion - what is the issue here?  Is
it the word "unadorned", i.e. do people feel that a metadata
convention like CF should be mandated?  Or do some people think that
NetCDF is inherently an unsuitable output for a WCS?

Cheers, Jon

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Ben Domenico <Ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

 Discussions relating to the draft CF-netCDF3 WCS binary encoding
 format has given rise to the issue of whether a single, unadorned
 CF-netCDF file should be an appropriate response to a WCS getCoverage
 request.  It is not clear that consensus on this issue has been
 reached within the GALEON community.

 It would be good to hear the current thinking of the GALEON community
 on this important topic.

 Thanks for any ideas and suggestions you have.

 -- Ben

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [galeon] Simple CF-netCDF file WCS response?
    • From: Dominic Lowe

• References:
  • [galeon] Simple CF-netCDF file WCS response?
    • From: Ben Domenico