Ron Lake wrote:
Hi John:
Surely the GML encoding is going to be simpler to parse and "understand" than
any equivalent binary encoding.
R
parsing XML is "trivial", as you point out, meaning we have lots of nice
parsers that do all that for you. But "understanding" GML is
non-trivial, to say the least, meaning that the semantics are quite
complex, eg judging by the size of the document(s).
parsing binary netCDF is a bit harder, though again we have some nice
libraries that already do it for you. Writing your own parser, however,
is only a few hundred lines of code, more or less what i mean by
"maximally simple".
"understanding" netCDF is much simpler than GML, as there are only 4 or
5 objects in the UML. "understanding" CF Conventions is much more
complicated, of course, but arguably easier than GML, partly because the
scope is much narrower.
<tangent>IMO, using XML Schema to describe a data model is really
painful. although I understand why its done when you want to describe an
XML language like GML (I do it myself). But I think its unfortunate, and
obscures the model with the representation. </tangent>
