>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.
I'm sure Wikipedia don't just want to serve communities that have
grown to this level - or do they?
> 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!
OK, but there's an important difference - users of USB don't have to
see any of the mechanics at all. Users of NetCDF files are much more
likely to want to understand the structure. Even if they don't, they
might be told that data that they want are provided in CF-compliant
files, and will want to look up what this means.
Another interested party is the GIS community who want to read
metocean data and want a summary of CF's aims.
I would have thought that the community of interest for CF would
easily justify a measly Wikipedia page, or is their worry that
Wikipedia provides no added value above the CF website?
Cheers, Jon
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:27 PM, John Graybeal <graybeal at mbari.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
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
Received on Thu Oct 23 2008 - 09:38:55 BST
