Cecelia,
I feel the same way about the UGRID spec at
http://bit.ly/ugrid_cf
Many people are already building unstructured applications around
these conventions, and it would be useful to have UGRID versioning
separate from CF to allow testing/bleeding edge development before
inclusion in CF. But perhaps we could agree to the unifying changes
suggested by Jonathan before stamping them as UGRID 1.0 and GridSpec
1.0?
We proposed these changes to the UGRID group and didn't hear any
squawking, so I imagine we'll go ahead an implement them.
-Rich
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Cecelia DeLuca <cecelia.deluca at noaa.gov> wrote:
> Hi Alex, Allyn, and all,
>
> The conversation on this has skittered around a little... some questions on
> an earlier mail are below.
>
>
> The ticket does reference a formal extension to CF
> [https://ice.txcorp.com/trac/modave/wiki/CFProposalGridspec]. Presumably,
> this is what users should reference for GridSpec documentation. Is that
> correct,
>
> Yes.
>
> I'm concerned about this as a solution once GridSpec becomes official -
> since GridSpec may evolve, we need unambiguous versions of it, and the
> cleanest way to do that is probably with separate, versioned documents.
> Would it be possible to associate a versioned GridSpec document with the
> next version of the CF standard?
>
> The GridSpec version could either be 1) the same as CF, so it might start at
> 1.7 and be updated with each CF release, or 2) have its own version path, so
> the first official GridSpec version might be 1.0, and it would only get
> updated when GridSpec changed. To me the latter is preferable, since the
> changes to the rest of CF and GridSpec are probably going to be pretty
> independent, but either approach is fine. Another advantage of the latter
> approach is that we could put a version on GridSpec and start using that
> immediately. I'm not sure who would make the decision, but it does seem
> like a decision is needed on how to proceed.
>
> Best,
> Cecelia
>
>
> How will future governance be handled without that? Should we consider the
> page as it stands CF version 1.6?
>
> Also, can the GridSpec convention only be expressed as a netCDF file?
>
> Yes it was written for netcdf. I'm assuming that anything that can be done
> in netcdf can be done in XML though I'm not a XML specialist.
>
> Best,
>
> --Alex
>
> Are there other formats (such as XML) for the CF Conventions that support
> GridSpec?
>
> Many thanks for your help.
>
> Regards,
> Allyn
>
> --
> Allyn Treshansky
> NESII/CIRES/NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
> 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305 USA
> Email: allyn.treshansky at noaa.gov
> Phone: +1 303-497-7734
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> --
> ===================================================================
> Cecelia DeLuca
> NESII/CIRES/NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
> 325 Broadway, Boulder 80305-337
> Email: cecelia.deluca at noaa.gov
> Phone: 303-497-3604
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
--
Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
Received on Mon Dec 03 2012 - 12:26:54 GMT
