Dear John
I am willing to take part in such discussions. I would generally prefer not
to avoid backward incompatibility but I agree there are some deprecated things
which it might be time to remove, and there are some optional things we might
choose to make mandatory. But we should be cautious about this. Also, we
should start from CF-1.7, which isn't yet complete. I believe that Jeff is
still working on compiling it.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from John Caron <caron at ucar.edu> -----
> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:34:23 -0600
> From: John Caron <caron at ucar.edu>
> To: Corey Bettenhausen <corey.bettenhausen at ssaihq.com>
> CC: "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model
>
> Hi Karl and all:
>
> NetCDF-4 compression and chunking are transparent to the user, and are
> compatible with the "classic data model".
>
> I think we should be gathering experiences with the enhanced data model,
> and start a CF-2.X convention draft document that uses the enhanced model.
> It would also be a good time to remove deprecated features and in general
> not require backwards compatibility. Perhaps if there are 5-6 people we
> could start a working group to discuss.
>
> John
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Corey Bettenhausen <
> corey.bettenhausen at ssaihq.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Thu Sep 11 2014 - 09:56:23 BST
