Hi Steve -
Thanks for the reply; I'll look into the GHRSST data standards docs
and see if that approach would work in this case - although, frankly,
I'm not too optimistic. If the GHRSST data generation community isn't
much smaller than that of in situ observational oceanographic data
providers overall, I'd guess that it is at least far more homogeneous.
Also, the fact that GHRSST has tools and a data portal gives you a fair
amount of leverage in deciding on a standard approach. I'm looking
for a more broad-based set of recommendations, something people
might voluntarily adopt - and, just maybe, tools will be written to use it.
While OceanSITES is working on the problem of metadata for in situ
instruments, several other groups are, too - IOOS and possibly OOI (not
sure about this, though). In any case, I don't think OceanSITES is in a
position to create and support standards beyond our own project. And,
since so many observational oceanographic projects are using CF, this
list seems like the best place to start asking.
So, I'll start a new ticket; your point about PointObs is well taken. You
ARE volunteering to be the moderator, right?
Thanks - Nan
> -----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
> Comment (by stevehankin):
>
> Nan,
>
> It is an important subtlety that you've raised: defining a general
> structure for in situ data versus meeting the needs of operational
> oceanography. I'd argue that the role of CF, per se, should be limited to
> the former -- to define the structures needed to carry in situ data
> collections. It would then be the task of the oceanography community to
> define a more detailed profile that builds upon CF and requires the
> specific metadata elements that operational oceanographers need. (In the
> satellite community the GHRSST data standards documents (the 'GDS')
> provide an excellent example of this approach. Ocean-Sites is doing this,
> too, isn't it?)
>
> The boundary between these two goals, however, is a gray area. It would
> be a positive contribution to CF if we can add those attributes (metadata
> content) into it that are generally applicable to many types of in situ
> observations. I'd argue, though, that those discussions should take place
> in a *separate* trac ticket from this one. This ticket already has a very
> full plate in dealing with the general in situ data structure issues.
>
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Wed Apr 28 2010 - 13:08:45 BST
