NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
If this were to become an OGC standard, I would recommend NetCDF 4 rather than NetCDF 3. I think it's a much easier sell in the long run, and I certainly appreciate its advantages over version 3.
It would be useful to look at how this might impact both the NetCDF management as well as the CF management. Would there need to be closer coordination between the two? Could OGC provide an environment for any discussions? I ask these questions with little understanding of how they are managed today.
As Stefano has explored, there are some conceptual differences between the NetCDF model and the ISO 191** models that are not totally trivial. This could be a formalization that may help with this process.
I'm not aware of the full context of the statement, but you may need to be careful about proposing that NetCDF be *the way* of handling binary data. There are a number of communities, particularly in the coverages realm, that do not use NetCDF and have no interest in doing so. It seems more productive to talk about NetCDF-CF as "a way" of handling binary information.
Ben, this may also partially address the NetCDF perception question/issue that we discussed recently.
Aaron TOYODA Eizi wrote:
Hello all,As I understood his suggestion, the general idea would be that CF and netCDF would be for binary data what GML and XML is for text data. To me this was a very innovative (if not radical) suggestionSo whould he try to change the media type to "application/cf+netCDF3" to reflect his idea? I think this is a natural way of thinking, but last July I thought it was not going to gain wide support in cf-metadata community.
galeon archives: