Wenli-
absolutely on board, this is the way it will be in the Core.
-Peter
Wenli Yang wrote:
Peter,
As I mentioned in yesterday's meeting. If core requires slicing, it would also
require offering of a CRS different from the offered coverage's original (or
native/etc) CRS. Other than that, I think slicing is a good function, i.e., we
can say an output coverage being 2D (x,Y) instead of 4D (1,1,X,Y). Of course,
information on the locations of the trimmed 2Ds should still be provided
somewhere in the coverage.
Wenli
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you're right, Max. I missed to add that, thanks for clarifying.
What I wanted to say is that with the mimics chosen we can support both
use cases.
-Peter
Max Martinez wrote:
I read his response differently. His description sounds to me that
the equivalent behavior in a WCS would be to trim with a coincident
upper and lower bound and return a coverage with the same
dimensionality and CRS just a whole bunch of data trimmed out of it.
They wouldn't use a slice.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding his response.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Peter Baumann [mailto:p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *Sent:*
Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:36 AM *To:* Steve Hankin *Cc:* Unidata
GALEON; Steven Keens; Max Martinez *Subject:* Re: [galeon] how to
handle "slicing" through n-D cubes?
Steve, thanks again for explaining to me how your community handles
the case. In the end we agreed to go as follows in WCS: - the slicing
operation defines which axes remain in the output coverage - the
server is obliged to provide some fitting CRS for the resulting axis
constellation (essentially, this only says: return a consistent
coverage) This should give degree of freedeom to servers to respond
with something appropriate for their situation, and it allows us to
keep all the intricate CRS issues out of the core. >From what I
understand when reading the page you list below this is compatible
with our approach chosen. So thanks again, that helped. -Peter Steve
Hankin wrote:
Peter Baumann wrote:
Steve- thanks a lot for taking time on this. Some questions inline:
Steve Hankin wrote:
Hi Peter,
I'll start the ball on this with a short answer.
CF datasets are self-describing. They do not reference a controlled
vocabulary of coordinate reference systems external to the file. Thus a
CF subset of a valid CF dataset is always another valid CF dataset and
its geo-location is self-describing -- even if it has fewer dimensions
than the parent file. The question you are asking does not really apply
to CF datasets "in their native habitat".
I see. Does this inline description change during subsetting? I.e.,
when you are building 2-D slices (just as an example) is elevation
and time information removed from the embedded CRS information? (They
may well remain somewhere in a metadata description, this is not our
concern for now.)
If we imagine extracting (say) a single 2D slice in the XT (lon-time)
plane from a 4D XYZT dataset, then the Y and Z axes are conceptually
reduced to single points ("projected"). A well constructed CF
dataset will include single point axes (*) for Y and Z, just as it
includes multi-point axes for X and T. We sometimes speak of the 2D
slice as being a *degenerate* 4D dataset, since it still possesses
the full 4D coordinate machinery. The way in which the slice is
embedded into the larger coordinate system remains self-describing.
In a similar manner, an in situ observation of a vertical profile or
of a time series may simply be regarded as a degenerate 4D dataset.
With this outlook broad classes of data may legitimately be thought
of as "gridded" (though using that term would lead to confusion in
some circles). This is part of the power of the netCDF data model --
that it unifies the representation and semantics of so many different
types of features. (*) footnote to say that there is a also a
short-hand way to represent scalar axes in CF ... but using it
doesn't alter the self-describing nature of the file. - Steve
Echoing your question back: CF 1.2 (??) added a section on "5.6. Grid
Mappings and Projections Horizontal Coordinate Reference Systems", which
is specifically to handle the associations between CF datasets and the
corresponding crs.
(http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/documents/cf-conventions/1.4/cf-conventions.html#grid-mappings-and-projections).
Should this mapping be refined to address solutions to 4D (n-D)
subsetting that you have developed in WCS?
Interesting to read this, it helps us to understand your approach.
Actually, we are not yet in a position to answer this question,
currently we are trying to disentangle issues of slicing
functionality and CRS handling (the former we would like to have in
the core, the latter in an extension). We will gladly come back for
this reverse discussion once we have something in our hands. -Peter
- Steve
=============================
Peter Baumann wrote:
Hi community,
in the WCS group we are wondering how you deal with subsetting
operations in n-D data spaces - obviously a result with less
dimensions than the original cube needs to get a different CRS
associated. How do you find the appropriate result CRS, for example,
for a x/t cut from an x/y/z/t cube?
thanks in advance for any bits of wisdom,
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
<http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann>
mail: p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 147737)
www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com>, mail: baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis
dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat
quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 10xx)
--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
<http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann>
mail: p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 147737)
www.rasdaman.com <http://www.rasdaman.com>, mail: baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis
dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat
quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 10xx)
--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
mail: p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 147737)
www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis
dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat
quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 10xx)
--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
mail: p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 147737)
www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis
dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat
quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 10xx)
