NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Roy - I disagree that SOS puts the focus on the sensor. An SOS request is framed in terms of the feature-of-interest (in your case either the ocean or a sampling-feature, such as a swath, related to the oce an) and the observed-property (e.g. temperature). Yes, you can use SOS to approach the observations via knowledge of the identity of the sensor, but this is not required. Simon ______ Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx CSIRO Exploration & Mining 26 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington WA 6151 PO Box 1130, Bentley WA 6102 AUSTRALIA T: +61 (0)8 6436 8639 Cell: +61 (0) 403 302 672 Polycom PVX: 130.116.146.28 <http://www.csiro.au> ABN: 41 687 119 230
-----Original Message----- From: galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roy Mendelssohn Sent: Wednesday, 17 September 2008 10:24 AM To: Ben Domenico Cc: Unidata GALEON Subject: Re: [galeon] GALEON-related OGC Coverages Discussions Hi Ben: I haven't had a chance to stir up a pot for awhile, so I couldn't resist on this one. Less on the abstract representation of coverages (sorry too old and too dumb, can barely understand word one of those things- I am still trying to grapple with the discussion from a couple of years ago that everything is a "feature", which implies if everything is then there is no discrimination power to the term and therefore has no functional meaning), but more on the idea that SOS, WFS, and the CDM say, for in situ data are all just different ways of representing the data. I would argue that they are not, and that there is a fundamental important difference. First, though this is a little glib, I don't think WFS has the data model for ocean observations, and most of what I have seen just shove the data into some WFS structure because you can. So I want to focus on SOS (SWE) and CDM. To my mind, SOS is a step backwards, because it puts the focus on the sensor, rather than on the ocean. For most of the GALEON community the focus is on the ocean, and in this case the 4D (5D if we count forecast time) ocean. I am not at all convinced, given some recent emails about WMS that I had, and some recent WCS decisions, that the OGC community understands nor is ready to embrace a 4-D ocean. Let me give an analogy. When an operation is going on in an operating room, there are all sorts of sensors connecting to the patient. yes, it is important, at times, to get the metadata for the sensor, in order to check it and calibrate and the like. But during the operation the key piece of information is the state of the patient, as can be put together from the different sensors, not the state of the sensors. SOS gives us the latter, while I would say GALEON's main concern is the state of the ocean, that is the former. The closest I have seen on the OGC world to the latter is CSML. Unfortunately, NOAA IOOS, at least as of now, did not decide to go with CSML. I would say rather than trying to harmonize apples and oranges, a failed enterprise from the start, let's work on harmonizing where the world view and data model share an underlying common viewpoint. -Roy putting on his asbestos jacket :-)
galeon archives: