Hi Steve,
I am happy you found our work useful. You raised very good discussion
points !
Presently, we are working to include CF ver.1.5 in the diagram and,
hence, in the clauses. Indeed, any comment and/or contribution is very
welcome.
Thanks,
Stefano
>
>
> 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 can send, but I fear they may be out of date.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
>>
Received on Mon Apr 04 2011 - 10:02:08 BST
