[CITE-Forum] WCS Test Engine Failure?

Peter Baumann baumann at rasdaman.com
Wed Jan 9 16:20:45 EST 2013

Hi Larry,

having an official statement should not be a problem, if necessary we can 
involve, eg, George Percivall or Carl Reed for nodding.
There are manifold reasons why one would not want to use WCS 1.x :
- no real interoperability (look at 1.x server implementations, they all come 
with their own client)
- insufficient testing - any WCS delivering correct metadata, but a black image, 
will be considered compliant by the CITE test
- no OGC maintenance (spec, tests, ...)
- monolithic = not extensible, harder to comprehend
- many places where the spec is ambiguous
- some outdated parts which are incompatible with other OGC standards today (OWS 
Common, CRSs, time handling, ...)
- no harmonization with GML, SWE, etc.
All this, and more, has been remedied in WCS 2.

A piece of history: As we perceived that WCS 1.0.0 was underspecified we came up 
with 1.1.2 that was roughly coherent, but tried to be exact. The result was a 
spec which was not apprehended very much - although part of this under-uptake 
was due to the CRS explanations making up about 50% of the text - there are 
maybe 5 people on this planet who really understand this all, and I do not 
belong to them. So we went back to the drawing board to come up with a WCS 2.0.0 
that is modular, easy to comprehend and implement, better tested, and 
harmonized. Today we have probably a dozen OS implementations of WCS (including 
MapServer and soon GeoServer), and uptake is growing rapidly.

So migration to 1.1.2 is significant effort, too, as backwards compatibility was 
not as much an issue earlier as it is today, and it does not remedy all problems.

Given that WCS 1.0 is 10 years old I definitely recommend to use the up-to date 
version of the standard.


On 01/09/2013 09:57 PM, Larry Gilliam wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> I'm in a similar position as Ulas, and my customer at NASA is really pushing 
> to pass 1.0.0 compliance. I have seen on this list and elsewhere the 
> suggestion to abandon 1.0.0 and move to 2.0, but b/c of lots of lingering 
> references to 1.0.0 ( and lack for 2.0 ) on the CITE site, I have been unable 
> to convince them to move on.
> I'm looking for anything that truly marks this 1.0.0 compliance test passing 
> as a lost cause. If you have any documentation, official statements, etc. I 
> would be very thankful. Currently as I peruse the CITE site, it looks like 
> 1.0.0 or 1.1.x are the most prominent ( I see little mention of 2.0, and can't 
> choose to test it with the online teamengine ).
> Thanks for any help. At the least I'm going to take your statement below to my 
> stakeholders and try to convince them to move on ( even skipping WCS 1.1.x ).
> -Larry
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Peter Baumann <baumann at rasdaman.com 
> <mailto:baumann at rasdaman.com>> wrote:
>     Dear Ulaş,
>     WCS 1.0.0 is deprecated, and the corresponding test suite is not
>     maintained any longer (yes, there are known issues with it).
>     Recommendation is to use the current version, WCS 2.0, adopted in 2010,
>     with its up-to date and maintained test suite.
>     regards,
>     Peter
>     On 01/09/2013 04:08 PM, ULAS AYDINER wrote:
>>     Hello again everyone,
>>     I felt the need to post another question here, since there are a few
>>     issues I see with the CITE test engine for WCS 1.0.0 and I am stuck.
>>     To summarize the situation: for every GetCoverage the test engine issues
>>     and expects content, my server returns proper content (GeoTIFF files, I
>>     also check my generated GeoTIFFs with gdalinfo to make sure TIFF tags are
>>     fine), but the test engine says that my test steps are failing. I think
>>     there is a small issue with the test engine here.
>>     Kind regards,
>>     Ulaş
>>     ulas.aydiner at netcad.com.tr <mailto:ulas.aydiner at netcad.com.tr>
>>     Cyber Park B Blok No:409
>>     06800, Bilkent / Ankara
>>     *Tel. :*(0312) 265 0510 - 223
>>     *Faks: *(312) 265 0520 <tel:%28312%29%20265%200520>
>>     <http://www.netcad.com.tr/>
>>     *ULUSAL CAD ve GIS
>>     ÇÖZÜMLERİ A.Ş.*
>>     www.netcad.com.tr <http://www.netcad.com.tr>
>>     .
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     CITE-Forum mailing list
>>     CITE-Forum at lists.opengeospatial.org  <mailto:CITE-Forum at lists.opengeospatial.org>
>>     https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/cite-forum
>     -- 
>     Prof. Dr. Peter Baumann
>       - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
>         www.rasdaman.com  <http://www.rasdaman.com>, mail:baumann at rasdaman.com  <mailto:baumann at rasdaman.com>
>         tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile:+49-173-5837882  <tel:%2B49-173-5837882>
>       - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>         www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann  <http://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann>
>         mail:p.baumann at jacobs-university.de  <mailto:p.baumann at jacobs-university.de>
>         tel:+49-421-200-3178  <tel:%2B49-421-200-3178>, fax:+49-421-200-493178  <tel:%2B49-421-200-493178>
>     "A brilliant idea is a job halfdone."

Prof. Dr. Peter Baumann
  - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
    www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
    tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
  - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
    mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
    tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
"A brilliant idea is a job halfdone."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/cite-forum/attachments/20130109/ad1df6ba/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the CITE-Forum mailing list