Hi John, Joe, _Kyle,_ et. al.,
Sorry for the delay joining the conversation. I have been away on travel.
Yes -- when the funding was found to support Joe in drafting this
specification the intention was that it would be followed by open
community discussions of the many individual issues. The folks at PCMDI
who are hosting the new CF development site (
http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/)
generously agreed to host these discussions.
Kyle -- how should we handle this? The discussion thread has already
taken off -- I count 9 messages so far on the dods-tech email list.
Would you like me to forward them to you? Joe's initial document is
available at
http://www.epic.noaa.gov/epic/software/dapper/dapperdocs/conventions/
Presumably this discussion will require a moderator and a document
editor (could be the same person). Joe, are you willing to help with
this? Jennifer? others?
- Steve
=====================================================
John Caron wrote:
> Hi Joe, et al:
>
> We have some various comments on this. Im wondering if you would
> prefer to have a seperate conversation on a possible new version of
> the spec, or just discuss the spec as it stands? I guess im wondering
> if this is the place to have the discussion Steve Hankins suggested:
>
> (Steve's original email)
>
> I'm seeking your thoughts here are on how the community can move
> rapidly towards the development of a written specification for the
> 2-level Sequence representation in OPeNDAP. (I'll refer to this below
> as the "DAP-2LS" conventions.) It looks like the time may be right
> next year for pretty rapid growth in the use of OPeNDAP for conveying
> in-situ data. Funding will probably be available for efforts along
> these lines. A written specification is needed if the community is to
> take full advantage of these opportunities.
>
> Between the DAPPER server and GDS there are successful example
> implementations to work from. Many of the details of the
> specification (e.g. encoding of time) can probably be borrowed from
> CF. The emerging PyDAP work promises to bring relational databases
> into the fold, too.
>
> Clearly funding may be needed to entice someone to take on this task.
> I believe that we can find a source of those funds in NOAA if we act
> quickly. Even if only an initial, draft specification were to be
> developed at this time -- with community comments and discussion left
> to follow later -- this would be an important contribution. Multiple
> venues for community discussion of CF-related conventions are taking
> form. One at Unidata (by September?) will host discussions about
> unstructured grid (finite element) conventions. Another at LLNL is
> getting started now to press forward with the CF conventions for more
> complex curvilinear grids. With an initial specification of DAP-2LS
> conventions in hand I imagine we can entice someone to host a
> community discussion, since access to observations is important to
> everyone.
>
> - steve
>
> P.S. I am just cheer-leading this effort. I do not expect be directly
> involved, myself. The pay-off to the community -- advancing data
> interoperability, OPeNDAP, the Common Data Model, etc. etc. -- just
> seems too big to ignore. "
>
--
--
Steve Hankin, NOAA/PMEL -- Steven.C.Hankin at noaa.gov
7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070
ph. (206) 526-6080, FAX (206) 526-6744
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20061006/bcce9fa9/attachment-0002.html>
Received on Fri Oct 06 2006 - 10:15:02 BST
