[CF-metadata] proposed rules for changes to CF conventions

From: John Caron <caron>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:00:26 -0600

Hi Jonathon, et al:

Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>
> The idea was the the libcf and the CF-checker are the two applications which
> are required to verify that the new convention "works", in the sense that it
> can be successfully interpreted. I think that's a pretty good indication it is
> not flawed and does not break applications. To require two further applications
> to use the data would, I think, be a recipe for no convention ever passing out
> of provisional status on a foreseeable timescale, since those two are the only
> ones which have a stated commitment to support CF.

To clarify, my intention was to specify that we need 2 (or more) independent confirmations of the feature with working code, preferably this would be libcf and the CF-checker. (not libcf and the CF-checker plus 2 more)

I am concerned about 1) libcf and the CF-checker being the bottleneck for proposals, especially complex ones that the developers of libcf and the CF-checker might not have time to work on; and 2) libcf and/or the CF-checker would not be an adequate test of the feature. In both cases it seems useful to allow other software to fulfill the implementation requirement.

Obviously this makes the process more complicated, so if no one else shares my concerns, I will withdraw it and see if it is a problem in actual practice.

John
Received on Fri Jun 29 2007 - 09:00:26 BST