> I have a proposal to make:
> Is it possible that we want to have only one standard (the AggServer version)?
> The argument is as follows. Suppose someone is describing a set of dods urls
> that correspond to different times. They have no intention of running an
> AggServer, so they confine themselves to the InvCatalog dtd. Wouldn't we be
> better off if they had described the collection in the AggServer format, so
> we would then be able to detect that aggregation is the appropriate thing to
> with the collection, and to describe/index/present it to the user accordingly.
> Or, if the software does not aggregate, just present the collection, nothing
> lost relative to the InvCatalog description.
I tend to agree with Benno on this, though the one standard may end
up being slightly different than the current AggServer version. My concern
is that the current InvCatalog description isn't extensive enough to be
much more than a simple list which in the long run isn't sufficient to
represent a true catalog. I realize that work is underway to develop
queriable catalogs, if possible that effort should try to merge the
existing Aggregation descriptions into those catalogs since in some
sense there are clear similarities with building multi-dimensional
aggregations of simpler types and traversing organizational hierarchies
represented in catalogs to uniquely identify data granules of