Re: [wcsplus] WCS 1.0+ interoperability and application profiles

• To: "Jon Blower" <jdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: [wcsplus] WCS 1.0+ interoperability and application profiles
• From: "Wright, Bruce" <bruce.wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:34:37 -0000

Jon (cc list),

I'm not sure that I feel best placed to answer the important question of
how likely is "WCS 1.0+" to be accepted as a standard...but I won't let
that stop me :-)=20

My understanding is that WCS 1.0+ is really being used as an initiative
to add to the WCS 1.0 spec and evaluate in the FES community, with the
intention of feeding into the future standards being developed by the
WCS Revision Working Group (WCS.RWG) (I guess this is actually called a
Standards Working Group now). So we might expect (hope) that this work
would feed into WCS 1.2 standard, rather than becoming a divergent
standard in the longer term.=20

See also Ben Domenico's earlier posting:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/archives/wcsplus/2007-October/
000020.html

Regards,
Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: jon.blower@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:jon.blower@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Blower
Sent: 30 October 2007 15:33
To: Wright, Bruce
Cc: wcsplus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [wcsplus] WCS 1.0+ interoperability and application profiles

Hi Bruce (cc list),

These are important points, thanks.  I think GALEON extracted some
best-practice conventions that will probably help here.

A wider question - having missed the Boulder TC that spawned this list
and the concept of a "WCS 1.0.0+" I'd like to know how this effort is
regarded in OGC and the WCS community?  How likely is "WCS+" to be
accepted as a standard (and, more importantly, how many people are
likely to actually implement it)?  Is it likely to be superseded very
quickly by WCS1.2?  How much effort is it really worth putting in to
this?

Cheers, Jon