NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Steve,In my experience, the fact has always been that OGC working groups were dominated by the folks who had a particular interest in some aspect of the topic thereof, championed it, and shepherded it along its way.
Even in some of our rather broad groups, now, (SensorML/SWE), although there's broad agreement that there's benefit in ocean observations, the key focus remains based on the satellite (imagery) origins of SensorML. I view the new Meteorological working group as a healthy start, however. I can see membership in that WG from both atmosphere and ocean scientists seeking to gain interoperability. And with a cohesive base, we can help drive other changes (CRS, datum agreement, acceptable units, etc.), consistent with the needs of the Atmo/Ocean community specifically.
This isn't a slight on OGC, its makeup, nor its members. It's recognition of reality, and that reality includes the fact that discipline science is becoming more vocal in the need for interoperability. Recall that essentially, the origins of OGC reside in GIS. GIS interoperability took years to actually realize, and is still mutating. AND, GIS is, in reality, 2D-based, although a lot of folk have started realizing that 2D maps don't well serve a 3D world... and things are changing.
I think David captured the essence of getting things moving. Count my voice in, too. gerry Steve Hankin wrote:
Hi Ben,Publicly adding my voice to the chorus of endorsements for this idea ... or at least for some serious exploration of it. Worth mentioning also the context: that David Arctur suggested this goal might be accomplished by spinning up a new working group (say, "Fluid Earth Systems"?). David's outlooked seemed radical to me in the sense that he seemed to imply there was in fact not such a coordinated OGC outlook on interoperability. The apparent outlook, he seemed to be saying, was merely a reflection of who was strongly participating in the process. I wonder if a part of the significance of creating a new OGC working group might be to recruit additional membership from within our own FES community and thereby to grow a more sizable OGC subcommunity that shares our view that a 3D space-time, continuous coordinate system framework needs to lie at the foundation of interoperability.- Steve Ben Domenico wrote:Hi,At the US IOOS (Intgrated Oceans Observing System) DMAC (Data Management and Communications Subsystem) Steering Team meetings last week, a topic with important GALEON implications came up. Please note up front that this is all very tentative at the moment and very much in the "investigation" stage. But, with the next OGC Technical Committee meeting coming up in June, we should begin considering the pros and cons and other implications.David Arctur of the OGC suggested that we submit the CF-netCDF directly as an OGC standard. 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) suggestion and questions arise whether this would involve the file format, the API, ncML, ncML-GML, CSML and possibly other facets related to CF-netCDF. In spite of the question marks, I think this is really worth some careful thought. Since the concept was so new to me, I asked David if there were any precedents that might serve as a template for how we might proceed. In response, he sent a list (appended below without any implied endorsement) which includes specification examples for file formats and for the APIs. Fascinating idea. . -- Ben=============================================Geographic Objects (GO-1) - this is a fine-grained API pushed by a federal agency, very little uptake, but it's an API that became an OGC standard.http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/go KML 2.2 - see what they did. http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/kmlSimple Feature Access, Part 1: Common Architecture - this is an interface with different platform-specific encodings (COM, CORBA) and SQL access (see next two references for the most used platforms)http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfa Simple Feature Access, Part 2: SQL Option http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfs Simple Features for OLE/COM http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfoOGC Reference Model (ORM) -- this is the roadmap for OGC standards evolution and maturation; in your proposal for CF/netCDF describe how it fits in the roadmap. http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/orm (pdf & doc downloads from this page)Best Practices - index page (includes next two references below) http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/bpBinary XML (BXML) Encoding Specification, OGC 03-002r9 (Craig Bruce, CubeWerx)http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=13636Specification Best Practices, OGC 06-135r1 (Carl Reed) - This document describes a variety of Best Practices and Specification development guidance that the Members have discussed and approved over the years. These Best Practices have not been captured in other formal OGC documents other than meeting notes.http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=17566 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ galeon mailing list galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFor list information, to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ galeon mailing list galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFor list information, to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
galeon archives: