It's an indication of interest beyond the 'local community', as for
example when there is a book explaining a programming language.
Unfortunately, our community's size mostly hasn't risen to 'book
level' yet. So any new person who's interested just gets sucked into
the primary community.
That said, there are a number of external references. For a minor
example, a search for "Climate Forecast" at MMI finds quite a number
of references, though no detailed discussions.
I'm wondering what the searchers looked for -- that could be the
problem. A search for
"climate and forecast" conventions
in Google revealed a lot of references, for example here's a (brief)
citation in a book:
http://tinyurl.com/5uy4s9
But I'm not sure 'citations' are the metric wikipedia wants to use.
Unfortunately, *using* a standard is different than *caring* about
it. Safe to say the population that cares about the USB standards is
significantly smaller than the population that uses them. Both both
are much larger for USB than for CF!
John
On Oct 23, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Jon Blower wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> I don't understand why there is a desire for others to document CF.
> Surely it's better to have a single authoritative source? Do they
> mean that they want evidence that others are writing about CF, in the
> sense that they are using it? One could argue that this entire list
> is involved in documenting CF, not just the primary authors.
>
> On the deletion page, this statement is patently false:
>> A web search reveals that few people care about this subject
>> besides the ones developing it.
>
> Lots of people care about CF, even if they don't know it, because
> their tools would not interpret data correctly. It can be
> demonstrated that CF is in wide use (see Steve Hankin's GODAE poster
> for instance).
>
> Cheers, Jon
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Russ Rew <russ at unidata.ucar.edu>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is currently a Wikipedia discussion taking place on whether a
>> CF
>> Metadata Conventions article is appropriate:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CF_Metadata_Conventions
>>
>> One of the characteristics that Wikipedia strives for in all
>> articles is
>> verifiable accuracy, which has led to the comment:
>>
>> The proper question to be addressing here is whether there is
>> documentation of these conventions by someone other than their
>> original authors.
>>
>> Does anyone know of such documentation? It would provide evidence
>> of an
>> independent source for information about the CF conventions, and
>> ultimately the verifiability of information in the draft article
>> being
>> built at:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF_Metadata_Conventions
>>
>> --Russ
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr Jon Blower
> Technical Director, Reading e-Science Centre
> Environmental Systems Science Centre
> University of Reading
> Harry Pitt Building, 3 Earley Gate
> Reading RG6 6AL. UK
> Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5213
> Fax: +44 (0)118 378 6413
> j.d.blower at reading.ac.uk
> http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/People/Staff/Blower_J.htm
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
John
--------------
John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org> -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project:
http://marinemetadata.org
Received on Thu Oct 23 2008 - 09:27:48 BST
