NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi, When this group says CSW, I assume you mean CSW.ebRIM? Ron
From: owner-galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ben Domenico Sent: November 18, 2006 1:44 PM To: Wenli Yang Cc: Yonsook Enloe; Liping Di; access-geoscience@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; THREDDS community; Unidata GALEON; John Helly Subject: Re: CSW, THREDDS, GALEON 2 Wenli, This issue of "granularity" or heirarchies or collections or groupings of datasets that are alike in some way was one of the issues confronted early in the THREDDS project. As a result, I believe we have an approach that works reasonably well in the THREDDS Data Server package. The issue continues to arise in most discussions of data and metadata collections and services. In fact it was one of the issues discussed at the 3rd Metadata Interoperability Conference I attended last week. It will be important to confront it in the context of OGC and ISO standards. The disadvantage of doing it in the WCS context is that one can envision collections that might include Coverages, Features, and Sensor Observations. For example a collection of all the data related to a specific event such as a severe storm, a flood, a hurricane, and so forth. One can create THREDDS catlogs for such "case studies." But it would be good to eventually have a standards-based interface for such collections. Perhaps the OGC CSW is not well suited to this sort of use at present. If so, it may be useful to consider suggesting augmentations to CSW. I believe there is a big advantage in that we already have a working system. I plan to send a copy of this to the THREDDS and GALEON groups as well as to John Helly who convened the Interoperability Workshop last week. Thanks for your careful description of the issues in terms of THREDDS catalogs and OGC CSW.. - Ben
galeon archives: