NOTE: The wcsplus mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi, It's great to see that the active technical discussions on the wcsplus email list. But I'd like to make sure we have a concise clear description of what we are up to. My recollection is that the main reasons expressed during the telecon were as follows: -- WCS 1.1 is much more complex and difficult to implement than WCS 1.0 -- It appears that the WCS.RWG is developing a specification that will be much different from WCS 1.1. In particular it will have a base specification that is relatively simple and a set of extensions -- There are advantages to developing specifications through reference implementations rather than deciding in committee on specifications and then attempting to implement them in the field. The approach this group is taking is to start with WCS 1.0 implementations and add the functionality needed to serve the datasets embodied in the CDM scientific data types, ( or CSML scientific feature types) discussed at the 2006 AGU meeting and the RAL features workshop. =============================================== Does that capture the key essence of what we are up to? I'd like to get some agreement on such a statement so we can let others know about it. In particular, I think it's important to bring in the GMU team because they are very active in both the WCS.RWG and in the practical implementations. Please go ahead and work this over, but let's try to come to some agreement by the end of next week. Also, if those of you on the wcsplus list know of others who have not joined the list yet, please forward this message to them and encourage them to join the list. http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/support/mailinglist/mailing-list-form.html Thanks. -- Ben
wcsplus archives: