⇐ ⇒

[CF-metadata] Convention attribute

From: Lowry, Roy K. <rkl>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:08:01 +0000

Dear All,

One thought that this debate has brought to mind is what should the practice be if the file convention is a profile (in the ISO sense) of CF? In other words, the file conforms to a given version of CF modified by a formally documented set of extensions (e.g. optional CF attributes declared as mandatory or additional attributes in the profile's namespace). Should both the CF convention and the profile name be included? My vote would be yes to avoid application software having to be aware of all CF profiles, but should there be any indication that it is a profile rather than an independent parallel standard?

Cheers, Roy.

________________________________________
From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory [j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk]
Sent: 28 December 2011 22:22
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Convention attribute

Dear Mark and Dave

I agree with Dave's answers. If two conventions are used together, it is the
responsibility of the data-writer to guarantee that the metadata supplied is
consistent if there are any overlaps in meaning. A particular case of that is
if the two conventions define attributes with the same names. It has been
suggested that conventions could signal their own name-spaces e.g. CF
attributes could all be prefixed with "cf_" (like the cf_role attribute, which
has been introduced in the new CF section 9). That could help with preventing
collisions of namespaces, but

* it would be cumbersome for writers of files that adhere to only one
convention, which is the usual case, and awkward for programs that read files,
since they would have to check for every attribute by two different names
(with and without the prefix, considering all the data that already exists
without prefixes).

* it doesn't help if the two conventions are inconsistent in their metadata,
whether or not they use similarly named attributes, and this is the more
serious problem, I would argue.

Therefore I don't think this is really a magic solution to get rid of the
potential difficulty. Rather, the writers of conventions have to be aware of
other netCDF conventions that might be used with theirs, and try to use ones
that already exist instead of defining new ones for a given purpose.

Best wishes

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
Received on Thu Dec 29 2011 - 03:08:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Sep 13 2022 - 23:02:41 BST

⇐ ⇒