NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
OK, I think I see the concern now. But, to be blunt, that perspective misses the point. The idea is that, with CF-netCDF as a WCS extension standard, any group that wants access to our FES (or metocean) data will have a standard, carefully-defined interface through which to access that data. The fact that it won't be part of the core is irrelevant. To emphasize the point, I'll call your attention to the fact that no encoding formats will be part of the WCS core. They will all be extensions. It really does make sense -- in a very practical way. -- Ben On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Roy Mendelssohn <Roy.Mendelssohn@xxxxxxxx>wrote:
Hi Ben: If the netcdf encoding is just an extension (rather than at the core of WCS), and if it is not supported by the larger WCS or OGC community (ie. if most WCS clients or servers do not support it), then it is not serving the purpose of providing interoperability between communities, which would seem to be the purpose of this effort. The GALEON effort has been very strong, and a lot of great work has been done. But is this viewpoint supported by the larger WCS or OGC community? Recent decisions about WCS would seem to suggest not. I would return to my email of last week. Where in OGC land is there something that is close in viewpoint to that of the metocean community? IMO it is CSML - the mapping between CSML Feature Types and Datatypes in the proposed CDM is very close. Rather than try to force a harmonization on the WCS level, where the larger WCS community does not appear to be interested, why not work for closer harmonization with CSML, with gateways and translators, and since the CSML folk are heavily involved in OGC, use whatever OGC transport layers/ service requests they develop for CSML as the ones that will provide the bridge. Sort of half-formed ideas (Steve is always much more articulate than I), but I think you get the idea. -roy
galeon archives: