NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi Steven et al., Following up on an action item for me at the Coverages session at the Valencia Technical Committee meetings, I'd like to mention two GALEON-related items. First, we are working on a WCS extension for CF-netCDF encoding. The GALEON group made a a few valuable suggestion for augmenting the draft. encoding spec that was circulated by Stefano Nativi to the GALEON email list. Those changes are being incorporated into the next draft that will be submitted to the SWG. It also seems the draft should be recast in terms of the encoding extensions template that is being developed. Second, the topic of non-gridded coverages came up at both the joint session with SWE and the Coverages session at the TC meetings. In GALEON, the issue of how to deliver non-gridded observational data is an important question. The relationship to WCS is not entirely clear, but GALEON 1 showed the value of a simple WCS use case in which the client defines a 3D bounding box, a time frame, and a property (temperature, pressure, etc.) and gets back a coverage encoded in CF-netCDF. However, with WCS we are currently constrained to coverages that are gridded at regularly spaced points in some Coordinate Reference System. In the GALEON community, this works for some forecast model output and some geostationary satellite imagery. A key question facing GALEON now is how to deliver the wide variety of collections of observational data via a similarly straightforward request -- based on OGC and ISO standards. And specifically, might WCS evolve (perhaps via extensions to the core) so that it would a viable protocol? For the true gluttons for punishment among you, I'm attempting to capture some of these issues related to the collections of non-gridded data in an airport weather use case at: http://sites.google.com/site/galeonteam/airport-weather-use-case-and-standards As you will note, this is a very rough compilation drawn from presentations by several GALEON team members. Many standard specifications come into play -- WCS possibly among them. As time permits, I plan to refine this document into something more complete and coherent, but I think it captures the salient issues even in its current form. -- Ben On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Steven Keens <keens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
All,
Please remember the WCS 1.2 SWG teleconference on:
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The teleconference line is reserved from 11:00 to 12:00 Eastern standard
time for the rest of the year 2008:
Phone Number: + 1 512 225 3050
Pass code: 55699#
If you cannot participate in this meeting, please provide your inputs on
the subjects below in email messages to the SWG mailing list.
Agenda
------
0) Mismatch between WCS 1.0.0 and its schemas - email from Ted
Habermann. I have invited Ted to attend the teleconference.
1) Re-evaluate priorities, based upon discussions at TC meeting.
2) 3.1 - Improve CRS descriptions
Arliss has posted 08-105r4 to pending documents at
http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=31408&version=1.
Please read it. I'd like to start a vote to move on to another subject.
3) 5.14 - Generalized constraint capability change request:
http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=31549&version=1
Time permitting; we will address the following items:
4) 6.3 - Coverage encoding core (common?) implementation Max, have you
been able to spend some time on this? I believe this is dependant upon
the expanded output coverage metadata CR.
5) 6.2 - Coverage encoding extension interface I'm going to wait until
the common encoding core is more advanced to develop an interface. That
interface will also be dependant upon the expanded output coverage
metadata CR.
6) 4.5 - Expand output coverage metadata Please read 08-166 available at
http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=30977&version=1
7) 2.1 - Generalized Domain/axis concept
8) 5.4 - Harmonization with SWE
9) 5.10 - Separate Grid Coverage Common
10) 5.9 - Reduce Implementation Options
11) 6.1 - Encoding Extension Template
12) 6.7 - GeoTIFF Encoding Extension
13) Priority of 2.5 - Unclear XSD stanza TimePeriodType?
I think this is a low priority and would put after 20 - where 20 is the
number in the Twiki page. What do you think?
Cheers
--
Steven Keens
galeon archives: