Difference between revisions of "Rational for WCS and WFS Combination for point data"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
== Web Coverage and Feature Services == | == Web Coverage and Feature Services == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Web Coverage Service was designed to deliver continuous coverages. The basic dimensions are geographic boundingbox and time. In general, each coverage point has little metadata about itself. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Web Coverage Service was designed to deliver rich metadata about stationary objets. While the feature has a boundingbox, the lat and lon are not dimensions. They are attibutes of features. | ||
== A Coverage can be irregular == | == A Coverage can be irregular == | ||
Revision as of 15:59, August 23, 2011
Experience with Station Point Data
We have used the combination of WCS and WFS at Datafed for station data for six years. Here are a few observations:
- Typical station data looks like 3D, but is in reality 2D.
- In cube data, you have typically at least 4 dimensions, lat, lon and time.
- In point data, you have typically 2 dimensions, location and time.
The station has 2 attributes: lat and lon, but it's still one dimension. This is an important distinction which was not in the design requirements for the WCS standard. Fortunately, the combination of WCS and WFS works great.
Web Coverage and Feature Services
The Web Coverage Service was designed to deliver continuous coverages. The basic dimensions are geographic boundingbox and time. In general, each coverage point has little metadata about itself.
The Web Coverage Service was designed to deliver rich metadata about stationary objets. While the feature has a boundingbox, the lat and lon are not dimensions. They are attibutes of features.
