NOTE: The wcsplus mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi Ben,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. --Stefano
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 mailing list wcsplus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFor list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
wcsplus archives: