Re: [wcsplus] [galeon] WCS 1.0 Plus philosophy and objectives

  • To: "David R. Forrest" <drf5n@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [wcsplus] [galeon] WCS 1.0 Plus philosophy and objectives
  • From: Philip Bogden <bogden@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 06:00:29 -0500

Ben (All),

David & Gerry are hitting the issue we're up against with the coastal modelers involved in the SCOOP program at SURA. As you know, this is the relevant initiative that relates to CF: http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ trac/wiki/BoulderWorkshop. And you probably also know that David & Gerry are part of the team that includes several folks on the attendee list for that workshop. A few others are gaining interest. Tom Gross had an important leadership role in the CF effort in the past when he was at NOAA, but he's now at UNESCO. It may not be possible to get him back, but it still seems that there could be critical mass for a focused effort.

Thoughts?

Philip

--------------------------------------
Philip Bogden, PhD & CEO,   GoMOOS
Acting Director: SCOOP Program at SURA
350 Commercial St, Portland, ME  04101
Office: 207-773-0423 bogden@xxxxxxxxxx
Mobile: 207-632-3308 Fax: 207-773-8672
----------- www.gomoos.org -----------


On Nov 2, 2007, at 4:29 PM, David R. Forrest wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Ben Domenico wrote:

Hi Gerry,

As you are no doubt aware, that issue has to be addressed on multiple fronts.

-- The ISO 19123 definitions are general enough to support such
datasets as coverages.

-- The WCS specifications have been more restrictive to the point
where the grids must be regular in some (perhaps) projected coordinate
system.

-- The CF conventions community has, to this point, focused on the
regular (or at least quasi regular) grids that are the output of
numerical forecast models.
...
irregular grids still needs some work. If we can complete the process
for the case of "station observations," I believe the others will
follow more quickly by benefit of the hard lessons we are learning
from the first two.

One question I have for you and the other members of the coastal
community is whether those unstructured/irregular grids are an example
of one of the current CDM scientific data types

http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/projects/THREDDS/CDM/CDM-TDS.htm

or whether a new CDM data type is needed.

From that document, the Station (or perhaps Swath?) type seems like the
closest CDM Scientific Data Type to the elements in an unstructured
grid model. However there does not seem to be a clear method to limit the
domain of applicability of a Station's data to some non-simple spatial
region associated with a CDM Station.  Unstructured mesh modelers use
nodes and a connectivity matrix to represent the regions over which their data applies, and are writing these in netCDF outside of the conventions.

Maybe a 'Cell' or 'Element' data type using nodes/vertices and some sort
of connectivity would be a valuable extention.

Dave
--
  Dr. David Forrest
  drf@xxxxxxxx                                    (804)684-7900w
  drf5n@xxxxxxxxxxxxx                             (804)642-0662h
                                    http://maplepark.com/~drf5n/
_______________________________________________
galeon mailing list
galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information, to unsubscribe, visit: http:// www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/