Hi Ben & all,
it is of high interest to the WCS.RWG to see your assessment.
Could somebody post a summary of where implementers see the issues with
WCS 1.1? That should aid us greatly for the next version.
TIA,
Peter
Ben Domenico wrote:
Hi all,
A group of GALEON Phase 1 participants who attended the Unidata 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 OPeNDAP/THREDDS/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:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/support/mailinglist/mailing-list-form.html
<http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/support/mailinglist/mailing-list-form.html>
-- Ben