Re: IOSP development inquiry - GOES, SSMI, AVHRR

Ethan Davis wrote:
> I also agree that we should start thinking about higher level, 
> scientific data types (e.g., grid, image, swath). However, at the IOSP 
> level the main issue is deciding how to map all the data and metadata 
> into the netCDF data model, including the use of any standard 
> conventions 
> (http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/docs/netcdf.html#Conventions). 
>
>
> Anyway, nothing definitive on conventions but it is something to keep 
> in mind as you work on these IOSPs.
Along those lines, I ran across the following in looking into this 
earlier in the year:
http://www.knmi.nl/kodac/over_kodac/catalogus/hdftag3-5.pdf
Does anyone know how widely this specification is used at KNMI?
It seems that if the netCDF4 will allow groups, then it seems that this 
specification should be considered. In this scheme, the map projection 
is a subgroup of the geographic group. In it, one could specify a few 
standard means for identifying the satellite grid (e.g., GEO/Kamel, 
GEO/Kepler, LEO/Kepler, LEO/LatLon, etc.) then the CoordSystem Builder 
could remap it. Using similar modules to GOESnav and GVARnav in VisAD?
-Ken

===============================================================================
To unsubscribe netcdf-java, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing-list-delete-form.html
===============================================================================