Bryan & Jonathan,
I agree with you both. ;-)
I think there *is* some use to having standards even if computer
applications have not been written to process them. The English
language is one such useful standard, but there are not too many
applications that work effectively on every aspect of it.
On the other hand, it sure would be nice to see an application that
demonstrates (a) why the new addition to the standard is necessary,
and (b) that the proposed solution actually works. But even if there
is a demonstrated app, that doesn't mean it's a good addition to the
standard. Just more grist for the mill of the Conventions Committee
to produce a good decision on inclusion. So I don't think we should
require it.
-Rich
On 11/17/06, Bryan Lawrence <b.n.lawrence at rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > ... However, conventions were devised so the metadata could be written,
> > because people thought it worthwhile to record it.
>
> :-) but this is my last point about a one hundred paragraph document. By
> all means record metadata, and document how you've done so, but until a
> number of folk have done so, and seen the utility of it, it's not a
> convention ... (let alone a standard) ... although the utility of
> discussing best practise it in the CF context is undoubted, and will
> help one do it, but nothing has been lost in this case if the CF
> community moves on and decides it is better done another way!
>
> Maybe we should wait until the other hemisphere wakes up and see if
> we're alone in this argument :-) :-) :-)
>
> Cheers
> B
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
--
Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
Received on Fri Nov 17 2006 - 09:04:16 GMT
