I agree with you on the need to make it clear that this is an effort
to "developing a specification that will
be much different from WCS 1.1."
To come up with a clear statement sounds very good by me. In your
message you hit main points, in my opinion.
In the same line, I'd like to stress a useful approach: work on
complex abstract specifications to keep implementation simple. In
fact, the Coverage realm may be very complex (i.e. the reality is
complex! [John Caron]). Hence, this complexity can't be avoided, but
it should be addressed and analyzed only at the abstract level
(avoiding shortcoming and allowing extensibility), but we must not
shift this complexity at the implementation level. This is possible
by making precise (and strategic) implementation choices. Actually,
Abstract specs are for domain experts, while implementation specs are
for developers and users.
Perhaps this is obvious, but, in some context, it is difficult to
make precise implementation choices (e.g. multi-community and
heterogeneous groups) and the abstract complexity is just encoded in
the implementation spec.
In my opinion, WCS 1.0+ should try to capture the key implementation
choices for FES community looking at interoperability with other
communities (i.e. the compliance with the full abstract spec).
I think this is useful to the WCS RWG activity, indeed.
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
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
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.
wcsplus mailing list
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: