Hi Steve,
I prefer an informal process. Perhaps we should let the discussion take
its course and issue a new revision when everyone agrees that it's
needed. I'm willing to write that revision, if it's OK with everyone
else out there.
- Joe
Steve Hankin wrote:
> 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/20061006/936a079b/attachment-0002.html>
Received on Fri Oct 06 2006 - 10:43:53 BST
