Hi Jonathan et al.
Jonathan said:
> > I remain unconvinced about introducing this kind of information into the
> > file, as it cannot be depended upon if it is optional, so it doesn't help
> > simplify programs, and it is redundant because it can be deduced on the
> > fly (I think). However I know I have a general preference for clever
> > programs and stupid (though complete, correct and clear) files.
John said:
> I appreciate your advocacy of that POV throughout the years, its very
> important that we maintain CF files to be as simple amd clear as possible.
> I also observe the tension between data providers and consumers, and it
> seems likely we will always be looking for the right balance between
> program writers and file writers.
and despite the disagreements that Jonathan and I have , I'd like to echo
this. I think it's healthy to have a tension, so we can seek the right
balance, and that depends on consistent well argued positions from all
sides :-)
Which brings us back to "can we come up with a simple yet useful proposition"
that doesn't overload the standard names (in any way, I totally agree that
this concept should not touch them) ...
... if no one else does so before then, I've allocated some time in a couple
of weeks to come up with a proposal and an example file, and a decent
justification ... (Bert, I hope you get to it before me :-)
Thanks
Bryan
--
Bryan Lawrence
Director of Environmental Archival and Associated Research
Head of the NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre
CCLRC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Phone +44 1235 445012; Fax ... 5848; Web: home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence
Received on Tue Mar 21 2006 - 00:57:33 GMT
