I don't have direct expertise in this area, but I know the developers
of SensorML thought about and imlemented this extensively, and it
would be Really Pleasant if the netCDF encoding aligns gracefully with
the typical provisions of SensorML. As I'm involved with a big
project that is starting with netCDF data models but will hopefully
also address SOS data models, I am really hoping for maximum
compatibility across all the features. (And would be delighted if
anyone has a reference pointing to existing transformation rules, I'll
check on the SensorML list too.)
John
On Nov 20, 2009, at 06:56, Thomas Lavergne wrote:
> Dear John,
>
> ----- "John Caron" <caron at unidata.ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>> The geometry of each point is an interesting wrinkle, and may need
>> some new conventions. would a rotated ellipse work (3 params) or do
>> we
>> need a more general polygon? Does it have to be specified per point,
>> or can is be common to all points? I would imagine that quick
>> visualizers might ignore the details of this (essentially assuming a
>> tesselating grid), but more sophisticated and specialized tools would
>> need this.
>
> I do not thing the FOV (field of view) of single "point" should be
> described as projected on the Earth surface (rotated ellipse and/or
> polygon) if this is what you meant. It should come as a response
> function of angular incoming radiation. This response function might
> be a formula (2D Gaussian, weighted sum of 2D gaussians, etc...) or
> given as a Look Up Table. The Earth-projected geometry will then be
> a function of the view angle, Earth topography, integration (photon
> counting) period, etc... We should definitely be able to have
> response function varying within the scan array.
>
> I think we are entering a terribly complex (and interesting) subject
> when defining a Feature for those space- and air-borne observational
> data. The question is then, where should we put the limit in
> complexity and what is the scope: Do we aim at encoding the
> "spacecraft instrument engineer" point of view or the "geophysical
> data user" point of view?
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--------------
I have my new work email address: jgraybeal at ucsd.edu
--------------
John Graybeal <mailto:jgraybeal at ucsd.edu>
phone: 858-534-2162
Development Manager
Ocean Observatories Initiative Cyberinfrastructure Project:
http://ci.oceanobservatories.org
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project:
http://marinemetadata.org
Received on Fri Nov 20 2009 - 10:04:58 GMT
