Thanks Mark,
It's good to have somebody reading stuff that I should read but never have the time! That certainly works for me. Providing there are no comments to the contrary that would make ''CF-1.6/SeaDataNet' or maybe 'CF-1.6/SeaDataNet-1.0' the value to be specified in the conventions attribute for the SeaDataNet NetCDF profile that will be a part of SeaDataNet II.
I feel it is essential for profile documentation to be published if data conforming to that profile are to be made publicly available. Further, if the data are to be exposed through INSPIRE then the way in which the profile is documented should follow the ISO conventions (it's one of the ISO19xxx documents, but I forget which).
Cheers, Roy.
________________________________________
From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Hedley, Mark [mark.hedley at metoffice.gov.uk]
Sent: 29 December 2011 13:27
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Convention attribute
hello Roy
I wonder if this could be captured by the notation in the Unidata documentation:
'''
Later, if another group agrees upon some additional conventions for a specific subset of XXX data, for example time series data, the description of the additional conventions might be associated with the name "XXX/Time_series", and files that adhered to these additional conventions would use the global attribute
:Conventions = "XXX/Time_series" ;
'''
(
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/conventions.html)
Does this provide a mechanism for profiling CF?:
:Conventions = "CF-1.6/mark'sFruityProfile"
Does the profile name "mark'sFruityProfile" get recorded somewhere?
Should this be published, or can I keep it to myself and my friends?
By the nature of the :Conventions declaration I have stated that "mark'sFruityProfile" is CF compliant, is that enough information?
cheers
mark
-----Original Message-----
From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu on behalf of Lowry, Roy K.
Sent: Thu 29/12/2011 10:08
To: Jonathan Gregory; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Convention attribute
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.
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
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 Thu Dec 29 2011 - 08:14:53 GMT
