NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
<wetBlanketMode> Iâm having some trouble digesting exactly the proposal here. From where I sit, we already have a perfectly well-defined and standardised encoding format (netCDF) â if we want a document, we can point to the NASA spec. We also have a set of conventions for that format (CF) that are well-governed within an existing community process. Iâm having trouble seeing what OGC brings to this. The added value, it seems to me, would come from integrating netCDF/CF within the framework ISO/OGC abstract approach to data interoperability, which is being adopted very widely across many domains (ref. the multi-billion â INSPIRE infrastructure). That approach is very simple and very clear â you first define a conceptual model for your universe of discourse (in which exchange and persistence formats are explicitly out of scope), then you (auto)generate a canonical encoding for that model, thereby enabling interoperable data exchange. CSML was one attempt (ours) at the conceptual model bit, and weâve shown that, *at least for current usages* of CF-netCDF, the ISO/OGC standard encoding of that model (i.e. GML) works perfectly well with netCDF *as-is*! (Incidentally, the CSML feature types and CF Point Observations proposal are in almost perfect alignment, meaning that the ISO/OGC standard approach works with even more confidence for current and proposed CF/netCDF.) Iâm not sure what extra standardisation is being proposed. On the other hand, I am very nervous that by merely ârubber-stampingâ CF/netCDF with an OGC logo, without first getting right the underlying foundations (i.e. an agreed standards-based conceptual model), weâll be headed to even more confusion ultimately (this is the reason there is so much hand-wringing about how exactly to bring KML into alignment with the rest of the OGC standards family â it doesnât share a common base). Iâd be very interested to hear David Arcturâs view on how exactly it was proposed actually to *integrate* CF/netCDF into the OGC frame, as opposed to just attach an OGC label, and to point out why such integration requires new CF/netCDF standardisation activity. In my view, such integration is already possible and happening. </wetBlanketMode> Regards, Andrew From: galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:galeon-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ben Domenico Sent: 15 July 2009 19:29 To: Unidata GALEON; Unidata Techies Cc: Mohan Ramamurthy; Meg McClellan Subject: [galeon] plan for establishing CF-netCDF as an OGC standard Hello, At the galeon team wiki site: http://sites.google.com/site/galeonteam/Home/plan-for-cf-netcdf-encoding-standard I put together a rough draft outline of a plan for establishing CF-netCDF as an OGC binary encoding standard. Please note that this is a strawman. Comments, suggestions, complaints, etc. are very welcome and very much encouraged. It would be good to have the plan and a draft candidate standard for the core in pretty solid shape by early September -- 3 weeks before the next OGC TC meeting which starts on September 28. One issue that requires airing early on is the copyright for any resulting OGC specification documents. Carl Reed, the OGC TC chair indicates that the wording normally used in such documents is: Copyright  2009, <name(s) of organizations here> The companies listed above have granted the Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. (OGC) a nonexclusive, royalty-free, paid up, worldwide license to copy and distribute this document and to modify this document and distribute copies of the modified version. I'm sending a copy of this to our UCAR legal counsel to make sure we are not turning over ownership and control of the CF-netCDF itself.. -- Ben
galeon archives: