>
> 1. assume certain characteristics which are more limited than full blown
> CF (e.g. one variable per file, dimensions in a defined order) - I
> *think* this makes it a profile.
>
> 2. use CMOR specific attributes, some of which are from controlled
> vocabs, to help identify/describe the data (e.g. 'experiment',
> 'model_id'), or identify the rules used to constrain the output
> ('project_id', 'table_id') - I *think* this makes it an extension.
>
These are both constraints, so I don't see that they should be viewed (or
named) differently.
> I *think* the way to recognise that a file has been produced by cmor is
> through the 'cmor_version:'. So I think in this case its more like
> Steve's proposal of 'OceanSitesConventionsVersion'. I don't know if
> this is/will be used in practice (e.g. by the CMIP5 file ingestion
> software) to help process data.
>
>
Using different attribute names for different conventions may get
complicated
when you have an application that uses datasets that follow many different
conventions. By putting them all into the Conventions attribute, your
software
has only to parse the strings in that one attribute and not look for
what might be
widely varying syntax for sub-convention attribute names.
At a minimum, I'd like to see CF recommend an attribute name for
sub-conventions,
like "community_profile" to make it easier to find these.
>> i think the common use case is this: a group already has
>> their data using their own convention, possibly even
>> documented(!). now they want to get on the CF bandwagon so
>> they are going to try to be CF compliant without breaking
>> their existing software. I dont see how we can disallow that,
>> since CF explicitly allows other metadata. if there are
>> conflicts, then I agree this should not be allowed. it does
>> argue for us to resolve the namespace problem, eg CF:attname = value.
>>
I think a more common use case is that a group wants to use a
standard for their project data and, rather than create yet another
standard vocabulary, and argue over variable names, units, etc, they
adopt the CF standard. The question is whether, when they need
something not already in CF, like new variable names, or ... hey, a
way to describe their community profile, they make something up for
themselves, or try to get it incorporated into CF. I'm not sure if
one approach is better than the other, but would like to see CF at
least recommend a common approach on this one.
Nan
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Thu Sep 03 2009 - 10:51:50 BST
