NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi Folks I really think it's important to distinguish between CF and netCDF in this discussion ... Two elements follow, negative, then positive: <moreWetBlankets value="netcdf"> Without any collusion with Andrew, I was already thinking along the same lines. I was initially fairly enthusiastic about this idea, in private email I stated the following (in regard to an early version of this idea): >Anyway, a quick take on this is that our CF white paper talked about >separating the information >content from the netcdf serialisation. OGC might >provide a suitable venue for the former, I doubt >that it's appropriate for >the latter. The point of the last sentence is that, unlike Microsoft, if we go into an external standardisation process, we should expect that process to make changes. Do we really want that for netcdf, given the number of existing implementations? If we don't, then if OGC rubber stamps existing practice, then what have we achieved (with all the effort)? Well, we have achieved - a defined encoding (oops, we have one of those). - a badge (well that's useful sometimes, especially for dealing with governments, but NASA carries some cachet, even over here), - publicity into new communities (ah well, that is important ... getting more people using netcdf has to be a good thing, and realistically OGC talks to the parts of the body that NASA can't/doesn't reach - with apologies to a well known beer advert). So is this really just about publicity? Are there other ways of achieving that which would require less community effort? (Sometimes I think standardisation efforts are for their own sakes. Yes I'm a big supporter of standardisation processes, but not for everything, and any given entity doens't have to carry everyone's standardisation badge). </morewetBlankets> <cuddlyThoughts value="CF"> I still think the semantic encoding concepts could well be split out, and they do fit nicely alongside other OGC type activities. What we might get is a process for advancing CF and more recognition that the work done on *advancing* CF is worthy of our time. I think we all agree that the process of moving CF along is bogged down by lack of attention from those of us who are invested in doing so, but have day jobs doing other things. Using OGC gives this work more "fundability" (e.g. it counts as "Knowledge Transfer" for academics in this country). That said, what I've seen of the current state of WCS doesn't exactly inspire me that OGC would necessarily make things any better ( http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence/blog/2009/04/23/wcs_is_dead%2C_long_live_wfs ) </cuddlyThoughts> Cheers Bryan On Thursday 16 July 2009 21:29:00 Woolf, A (Andrew) wrote: > <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 > > -- Bryan Lawrence Director of Environmental Archival and Associated Research (NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre and NCEO/NERC NEODC) STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Phone +44 1235 445012; Fax ... 5848; Web: home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence
galeon archives: