Re: [wcsplus] WCS 1.0+ interoperability and application profiles

NOTE: The wcsplus mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.

Hi Jon,

My perspective: The effort initially was proposed as an 'implementation
interop' experiment between Unidata, CNR-IMAA, STFC, and the Met Office.
Of course if something useful comes out, then that will be fed back to
OGC membership and WCS RWG.

The motivation is very definitely to avoid lengthy 'specification
develpment' arguments and get on with actual implementations that do
what we need. Unidata and STFC hope to develop servers, and CNR-IMAA a
client, with Met Office playing a role in review against operational
requirements (I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone's intentions).

The aim also is to stick as closely as possible to WCS 1.0 and avoid as
much as possible inventing new things. The key issues identified from
GALEON 1, and targets of this exercise are: asynch, heterogeneous
coverages, irregular grids.

To that end, I'm sending an initial draft outline of capabilities that:
* adopts a WPS approach for asynch, proven in the DEWS WCS (Jon I stole
some of your words here)
* minimally 're-interprets' 1.0 AxisDescription for heterogeneous
coverages
* adopts 07-112 proposal for 19123 irregular grids in GML (details to
be added)

Regarding the asynch, I think there's a danger in trying to make 1.0+
solve the full spectrum of use cases, that we might get too bogged down
in 'designing the spec' to actually get on with the implmentations that
are the focus of this exercise. Given DEWS success, and the existing
approach of WPS, it seems to me that's a good thing to focus on. I've
adopted the WPS ExecuteResponse as Jon indicated would work.

My suggestion is that we try and converge on an agreed spec as quickly
as possible - sticking with the 'minimal change' and 'implementation
focus' principles agreed, even to the detriment of functionality.

Ben suggested Google docs as a mechanism for collaborative work on the
spec doc - what do people think?

Regards,
Andrew



-----Original Message-----
From: wcsplus-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wcsplus-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Blower
Sent: 30 October 2007 15:33
To: Wright, Bruce
Cc: wcsplus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [wcsplus] WCS 1.0+ interoperability and
application profiles

Hi Bruce (cc list),

These are important points, thanks.  I think GALEON extracted
some best-practice conventions that will probably help here.

A wider question - having missed the Boulder TC that spawned
this list and the concept of a "WCS 1.0.0+" I'd like to know
how this effort is regarded in OGC and the WCS community? How likely is "WCS+" to be accepted as a standard (and, more 
importantly, how many people are likely to actually implement
it)? Is it likely to be superseded very quickly by WCS1.2? How much effort is it really worth putting in to this? 

Cheers, Jon

Attachment: WCS 1.0+.doc
Description: WCS 1.0+.doc

  • 2007 messages navigation, sorted by:
    1. Thread
    2. Subject
    3. Author
    4. Date
    5. ↑ Table Of Contents
  • Search the wcsplus archives: