Difference between revisions of "Talk:WCS 1.0 1.1 2.0 for AQ Network"

Revision as of 10:37, July 15, 2011

WCS 1.1.2 WCS 2.0 Difference -- Michael Decker (MDecker) 09:58, 15 July 2011 (MDT)

There are some open questions about the scope of WCS 2.0, like level and time filter queries. I want to browse the WCS 2.0 docs (at least briefly) before the meeting and some of those questions might already be answered then. If you have any insights already, then feel free to comment on them. Also I have no idea yet how big the differences between 1.1.2 and 2.0 really are.

Re: WCS 1.1.2 WCS 2.0 Difference -- Hoijarvi 10:00, 15 July 2011 (MDT)

My initial reaction: supporting WCS 2.0 is mostly a syntactic operation translating input query and output data to 2.0 format. The framework should support 1.1.2 and 2.0 at the same time. If more features, like multiple time axes are needed, then those needs to be added. The 2.0 standard is still a draft and the number of topics that the standards group is evaluating is still large, so we cannot expect to move to it soon. http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/wcs2.0swg

Re: WCS 1.1.2 WCS 2.0 Difference -- Rhusar 10:37, 15 July 2011 (MDT)

One clarification on the status of the WCS 2.0. The core specification has been officially adopted by the OGC, so it is no longer in draft form. On the other hand, this does not mean that the specification is complete because the OGC now uses a core and extensions approach to standards, so there are many extensions underway -- including encoding formats. http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wcs

The situation is similar for netCDF. The core specification has been adopted by the OGC along with one extension for the netCDF classic encoding. http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/netcdf

Work is underway on a CF conventions extension to the netCDF core as well as an extension to the WCS 2.0 for the CF-netCDF encoding.

I'm not sure how important this is in light of the fact that most of the subsequent email discussion is about streaming, but I thought it was worth noting since it was among the first topics broached in the email conversation.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 My initial reaction: supporting WCS 2.0 is mostly a syntactic operation translating input query
 and output data to 2.0 format. The framework should support 1.1.2 and 2.0 at the same time. If more features, like multiple time axes are needed, then those needs to be added. The 2.0 standard is still a draft and the number of topics that the standards group is evaluating is still large, so we cannot expect to move to it soon.  http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/wcs2.0swg
+===Re: WCS 1.1.2 WCS 2.0 Difference -- [[User:Rhusar|Rhusar]] 10:37, 15 July 2011 (MDT)===
+One clarification on the status of the WCS 2.0.   The core specification has been officially adopted by the OGC, so it is no longer in draft form.  On the other hand, this does not mean that the specification is complete because the OGC now uses a core and extensions approach to standards, so there are many extensions underway -- including encoding formats. http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/wcs
+The situation is similar for netCDF.  The core specification has been adopted by the OGC along with one extension for the netCDF classic encoding. http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/netcdf
+Work is underway on a CF conventions extension to the netCDF core as well as an extension to the WCS 2.0 for the CF-netCDF encoding.
+I'm not sure how important this is in light of the fact that most of the subsequent email discussion is about streaming, but I thought it was worth noting since it was among the first topics broached in the email conversation.