Re: [galeon] GALEON-related discussion at the IOOS-DMAC meetings

NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active.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

  • To: TOYODA Eizi <toyoda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [galeon] GALEON-related discussion at the IOOS-DMAC meetings
  • From: Aaron Braeckel <braeckel@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:18:31 -0600
I fully support this idea. This could also be something that could involve and/or draw from the OGC earth sciences group as well as the Met and Oceans groups.

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) suggestion

So 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.




  • 2009 messages navigation, sorted by:
    1. Thread
    2. Subject
    3. Author
    4. Date
    5. ↑ Table Of Contents
  • Search the galeon archives: