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

• To: Ben Domenico <Ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: [galeon] GALEON-related discussion at the IOOS-DMAC meetings
• From: TOYODA Eizi <toyoda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 02:06:34 +0900

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.

-- 
TOYODA Eizi

On Sun, 10 May 2009 10:38:42 -0600
Ben Domenico <Ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> At the US IOOS (Intgrated Oceans Observing System) DMAC (Data Management and
> Communications Subsystem) Steering Team meetings last week, a topic with
> important GALEON implications came up.  Please note up front that this is
> all very tentative at the moment and very much in the "investigation" stage.
>  But, with the next OGC Technical Committee meeting coming up in June, we
> should begin considering the pros and cons and other implications.
> 
> David Arctur of the OGC suggested that we submit the CF-netCDF directly as
> an OGC standard.  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 and
> questions arise whether this would involve the file format, the API, ncML,
> ncML-GML, CSML and possibly other facets related to CF-netCDF.  In spite of
> the question marks, I think this is really worth some careful thought.
>  Since the concept was so new to me, I asked David if there were any
> precedents that might serve as a template for how we might proceed.  In
> response, he sent a list (appended below without any implied endorsement)
> which includes specification examples for file formats and  for the APIs.
> 
> Fascinating idea.
> .
> -- Ben
> 
> =============================================
> 
> Geographic Objects (GO-1) - this is a fine-grained API pushed by a federal
> agency, very little uptake, but it's an API that became an OGC standard.
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/go
> 
> KML 2.2 - see what they did.
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/kml
> 
> Simple Feature Access, Part 1: Common Architecture - this is an interface
> with different platform-specific encodings (COM, CORBA) and SQL access (see
> next two references for the most used platforms)
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfa
> 
> Simple Feature Access, Part 2: SQL Option
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfs
> 
> Simple Features for OLE/COM
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/sfo
> 
> OGC Reference Model (ORM) -- this is the roadmap for OGC standards evolution
> and maturation; in your proposal for CF/netCDF describe how it fits in the
> roadmap.
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/orm  (pdf & doc downloads from this
> page)
> 
> Best Practices - index page (includes next two references below)
> http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/bp
> 
> Binary XML (BXML) Encoding Specification, OGC 03-002r9 (Craig Bruce,
> CubeWerx)
> http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=13636
> 
> Specification Best Practices, OGC 06-135r1 (Carl Reed) - This document
> describes a variety of Best Practices and Specification development guidance
> that the Members have discussed and approved over the years. These Best
> Practices have not been captured in other formal OGC documents other than
> meeting notes.
> http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=17566
> 


-- 
TOYODA Eizi <toyoda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [galeon] GALEON-related discussion at the IOOS-DMAC meetings
    • From: Aaron Braeckel

• References:
  • [galeon] GALEON-related discussion at the IOOS-DMAC meetings
    • From: Ben Domenico