I fully share this approach.
Below is my revised attempt to describe the wcsplus initiative. I'd
like to send it out to the galeon list in a day or two. Let me
know what you think.
A group of GALEON Phase 1 participants who attended the OGC
Interoperability Day in Boulder came up with a few observations
regarding attempts to use the WCS specifications serve Earth science
datasets traditionally made available via in CF-netCDF/OPeNDAP/THREDDS.
-- The WCS 1.1 protocol specification is much more complex and
difficult to implement than WCS 1.0.
-- It appears that the WCS.RWG is now developing a new specification
(WCS 1.2?) 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.
-- The CF-netCDF community would benefit from a more general (and
perhaps more complex) abstract coverage data model and a simpler
protocol specification than is available in WCS 1.1
-- One of the lessons learned from GALEON Phase 1 is that there are
distinct advantages to having communities of practice develop
practical reference implementations in parallel with RWG efforts to
define specifications in committee.
Based on these observations and follow up discussion, an initiative
is underway to start with current implementations of the WCS 1.0
protocol and add functionality to the specification (and to the
implementations) as needed in order to serve a more diverse set of
CF-netCDF/THREDDS/OPeNDAP datasets via standard protocols. In
effect this is an effort to develop "reference implementations" of
the protocol and extensions that will hopefully inform the committee
work of the RWG.
An email list called wcsplus has been formed. You can join the list at:
wcsplus mailing list
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: