Tim,
There was a discussion of this last year. See the archives:
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2013/author.html
Particularly, the thread "Towards recognizing and exploiting hierarchical groups":
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2013/056827.html
Cheers,
-Corey
On Sep 10, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Timothy Patterson wrote:
> Is it correct to say that, although they don't explicitly state it, the CF conventions (1.6 and the draft 1.7) restrict compliant netCDF products to be either netCDF-3 or netCDF-4 in classic format? There are no conventions for the enhanced features such as groups and user-defined types like enumerated variables, and Section 2.2, as an example, bars the use of unsigned integer variables or string variables (which are even stated not to exist, again implying classic-model only).
>
> There are some features of the enhanced model we want to use for our future datasets (such as groups) and some features which would make life easier but could be worked around if it led to CF compliance (enumerated types, unsigned integers, string types, etc.). Are there any plans to introduce conventions for the use of these enhanced features at some point in the future or would non-classic model datasets always be seen as non-compliant?
>
> Thanks for your insights on this issue!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Patterson
>
>
>
> ---------------------
>
> Dr. Timothy Patterson
> Instrument Data Simulation
> Product Format Specification
>
> EUMETSAT, Eumetsatallee 1, D-64295 Darmstadt, Germany
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Corey Bettenhausen
Science Systems and Applications, Inc
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
301 614 5383
corey.bettenhausen at ssaihq.com
Received on Wed Sep 10 2014 - 10:35:20 BST
