Hi Corey,
Le 19/09/2013 09:05, Corey Bettenhausen a ?crit :
>
> On Sep 19, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Karl Taylor wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Again, I may be unaware of all the possible uses of hierarchies, but here's our experience with CMIP.
>>
>> It seems to me if hierarchies are for the purpose of "organizing" datasets (or organizing a bunch of files), this should fall outside CF's purview because a single hierarchy is rarely ideal for all purposes.
> I wasn't under the impression that CF would dictate how these datasets are organized into hierarchies. Rather, the organization of datasets within the file would be left to the producers or users. However, CF-aware software should be able to traverse the hierarchy and perform the same functions as if the file were flat (assuming the datasets are described appropriately with CF metadata).
Nothing in our proposal mandates a single way of representing
hierarchies. Au contraire. A hierarchy indicates relationships
among a collection of objects. We wish CF contained provisions
to encode relationships among collections of datasets, which
are themselves collections of variables. CF already contains
provisions to specify collections of variables. But not among
collections of collections of variables.
> Did I misunderstand the original proposal?
No, but there is no formal proposal yet.
Because it's a big idea, and it needs more discussion first.
The basic ideas are groups, group metadata inheritance, and
exploiting them with conventions (e.g., "ensembles").
It is not all or nothing but it would IMHO make sense as a package.
cz
> Cheers,
> -Corey
--
Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci.
University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'(
Received on Thu Sep 19 2013 - 14:58:24 BST
