I'd also like to participate in a working group developing updated CF
conventions that take advantage of the netCDF-4 enhanced data model.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:34 PM, John Caron <caron at ucar.edu> wrote:
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20140911/b0ab628c/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Thu Sep 11 2014 - 21:54:53 BST
