RE: OGC Ottawa TC meeting highlights

NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active.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

Ben et al.

If you want to look at encoding large coverages in GML, I strongly suggest
that you look at the SWE Common approach for defining the data structure and
encoding and then packaging the data values into ascii, base64, or true
binary blocks. This is available in the SWE Observation schema, but could be
used for any Feature. Efficient packing and rapid parsing of large blocks of
data are the resons we developed this approach.

You can find some examples within the SWE Common encoding and examples
section of the SensorML document (OGC 07-000).

Thanks.
Mike Botts


Hi all,

_From my point of view, this has been an excellent and productive discussion
in a topic area that I've found difficult to fathom since I became involved
in the OGC.  But, it's been very far reaching and I'd like to propose that
we break it up into sub-topics that might fit better into different email
lists and discussion groups.
1. GALEON I.E.: Since the discussion started in the GALEON context, I'll
start with my idea for the GALEON topics that fit in as part of an
interoperability experiment:
-- Starting with the kinds of CF-netCDF coverages we worked with in GALEON
1, does it make sense to represent those coverages in GML encodings such as
ncML-GML, CSML?  Given that approach, is it practical to represent all the
data in the GML or should the payload still be binary encoded in CF-netCDF
or perhaps GML-JP2K?  And given that approach, should the data be served via
WFS as well as WCS?
-- For collections of stations observation data taken over time (time series
of data taken at a large number of fixed points in space, such as weather
stations or river gaging stations), does it make sense to represent those as
discrete grid point coverages?  If so, how should they be encoded and
served?
To me these are important areas of practical experimentation for GALEON 2
and I plan to put them onto the agenda for our next GALEON telecon.

2. OCEANS I.E.: The issue of the relationship between the coverages of
GALEON  1 and SWE/SOS could be addressed as part of the Oceans
interoperability experiment.  Certainly the output of weather forecast
models is of interest to the ocean sciences.  Can the CF-netCDF encoded
coverages of such datasets be served via SOS to that community of clients?
My respectful suggestion is that the Oceans I.E. consider this as a part of
the experiment.  Since I'm part of the Oceans IE, I'll see if there's time
to broach the subject at that telecon later this morning.

3. ARCHITECTURE?:  Much of the theoretical, abstract level discussion of
what are the fundamental data objects we are dealing with and how the data
and metadata access protocols relate to one another seems to me to be a
question of overarchihng architecture and should be taken up there.  But,
since I'm not part of that group, I leave it to others to decide how to move
forward on those issues.  Of course, these abstract discussions will be
grounded by the practical experiences gained in the interoperability
experiments.
4. OTHER: Aspects of the interaction have touchs on topics that relate to
coverages in general, catalogs, etc. and one hopes those facets of the
discussion will be carried to the appropriate working groups so that we can
all continue our focussed efforts while remaining aware of the bigger
picture issues of how our work fits with that of others.
Many thanks to all for a wonderful discussion.  I hope it continues to
flourish as a set of lively interactiions on the sub-topics as well as a set
of practical implementations and experiments for each of the key components.


I should add that I have no real objection to continuing the interactions
here, but I'd like to make sure that some of these specific topics be taken
up in the appropriate groups.

-- Ben




  • 2007 messages navigation, sorted by:
    1. Thread
    2. Subject
    3. Author
    4. Date
    5. ↑ Table Of Contents
  • Search the galeon archives: