On 4/2/2011 2:03 AM, Stefano Nativi wrote:
> Hi Upendra,
>
> My plane was delayed ...
>
> Please, find attached the draft CF-netCDF data model specification
> that Ben and I are developing for the OGC.
>
> In this version of the specification, the CF conventions are still
> version 1.1. However, I have been working to update them to 1.5 --as
> was decided at the last OGC netCDF SWG meeting in Bonn.
>
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for sharing this. And thanks for the important work that you and
Ben and others are doing bringing the worlds of netCDF and OGC
together. It's a terrific contribution.
Your draft has a number of elements that may benefit from debate on this
email list -- starting with the desired relationship between "CF for
OGC" and "pure CF" (for lack of better terms). Concepts like
RadialAzimuth/Elevation/Distance have not yet not, to my knowledge, been
defined in "pure CF", for example. And the converse, that some of the
concepts, like the leap_month designation (I had to look it up) are so
old and rarely used (??), that maybe this should be an opportunity to
discuss whether they ought to be deprecated. Curvilinear coordinates
appear to be incompletely represented in your diagram at this point.
Enjoy your week in Vienna!
- Steve
>
> I hope that helps.
>
>
> Stefano
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hi Upendra,
>>
>> As part of the effort to establish CF as an OGC standard, Stefano
>> Nativi has created a UML diagram and carefully crafted systematic
>> description of the CF extension to the netCDF classic data model.
>> I'll send Stefano a copy of this message so he can send you the
>> latest version of the appropriate information. I have copies that I
>> can send, but I fear they may be out of date.
>>
>> Please note that Stefano is very busy at this time as the chair of
>> the ESSI division of the EGU which is meeting next week, so he may
>> not be able to respond immediately.
>>
>> -- Ben
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Upendra Dadi <Upendra.Dadi at noaa.gov
>> <mailto:Upendra.Dadi at noaa.gov>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>> I am trying to better understand CF model and its relationship
>> with netCDF-classic data model. Is there even a relationship? If I
>> am creating a netCDF file using CF conventions, does the file have
>> to be using classic data model? If I am using netCDF4 with strings
>> and no other feature of netCDF4, could it still be CF compliant.
>> Is it right to say that one of the basic elements of CF standard
>> is regular arrays as opposed to variable length arrays? And that
>> is where the "relationship" between CF model and netCDF-classic
>> data model ends? Does CF "recognize" variable length arrays?
>> I guess these issues are important in the context of proposed
>> discrete sampling geometry extension to CF.
>>
>> Upendra
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu <mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20110404/b39e7e63/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Mon Apr 04 2011 - 09:30:21 BST
