[CF-metadata] Use of ACDD metadata: dioes this break the CF convention and what are the implications

From: Kenneth Casey <Kenneth.Casey>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 12:56:12 -0400

Craig - to be absolutely clear: the ACDD attributes in no way conflict with CF. They just provide some recommendations on what names to use for some attributes. Using a common set of attribute names enables us to build tools around those attributes that work well across different data sets. Within NOAA for example there is a project called the Unified Access Framework that has linked together dozens of disparate THREDDS Data Servers through a single THREDDS catalog. The larger number of data sets in that catalog that use the ACDD the easier it is to build and maintain a dynamic crawler to update that catalog on a regular interval. Also, it becomes possible to extract automatically ISO "discovery level" metadata and feed it into standard search mechanisms thereby making it possible to find what you want amidst that sea of information. Other groups have built tools to automatically crawl these attributes to assess the data in terms of it's metadata robustness. That knowledge is useful for a variety of pur
poses.

I will be interested to hear what folks on this list have to say about CF "taking up" the ACDD recommendations. That might be fine but I am not sure it is necessary. ACDD is focused purely on improving discovery. CF focuses on other things like usability and understanding, at least as far as I understand it.

Ken

--
Kenneth S. Casey, Ph.D.
Technical Director
NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring MD 20910
301-713-3272 x133
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov
On Jul 10, 2010, at 5:38 AM, Craig Donlon <craig.donlon at esa.int> wrote:
> Dear all:
> CF is quite light on global metadata and metadata suitable for data discovery and interoperability.  Within the Group for High Resolution Sea Surface Temperature (GHRSST, see http://www.ghrsst.org) we are updating our product technical specifications (GDS) documentation.  We want to provide more flexibility and interoperability with our products in a  'future proof' manner. GHRSST is handling 25Gb data per day in an international context with many thousands of files in NRT.  
> 
> Our latest specs. have included the NetCDF Attribute Convention for Dataset Discovery (ACDD http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf-java/formats/DataDiscoveryAttConvention.html) and this has raised some questions about our CF compliance.  I realise that CF allows extensions, but what I am asking for is some guidance on the future aspirations of CF for discovery metadata.  I like the ACDD recommendations and Ideally, I would like to be able to write in our GHRSST data products that we are fully CF compliant.  Does the CF community anticipate taking up the ACDD recommendations in the near future? What are peoples thoughts on CF and improved metadata discovery?
> 
> I look forward to your comments and advice,
> 
> Best regards
> Craig Donlon (Chair of the GHRSST International Science Team)
> 
> -- 
> Dr Craig Donlon
> Principal Scientist for Oceans and Ice
> ESA/ESTEC (EOP-SME)
> Keplerlaan 1, 2201 AZ
> Noordwijk The Netherlands
> 
> t: +31 (0)715 653687
> f: +31 (0)715 655675
> e: craig.donlon at esa.int
> m:+31 (0)627 013244 (*new*)
> Skype ID:crazit
> altE-mail: craig.donlon at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20100710/5d736c5e/attachment-0002.html>

Received on Sat Jul 10 2010 - 10:56:12 BST