[CF-metadata] CF-2.0 Convention discussion

From: stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk <stephen.pascoe>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:54:02 +0000

Tim,

The usual convention is that version numbers are not decimal but "."-separated integers. Therefore, following 1.9 would be 1.10 and there is no necessity to merge into 2.0.

On the subject of git and github. I would thoroughly recommend embracing github as a collaborative tool. The github ticket system is excellent and the freedom to experiment that comes with git branches and forks is truly revolutionary. For me, the point about git is that all parties are in control -- no-one needs authorisation to try something new and the "official" branch does not loose control by allowing experimentation. It is a technology which enables a true meritocracy.

Having said that, I understand that it is a big culture shift which people don't "get" until they have had to use it for a while.

My final point -- bear in mind that those of us who's job it is to archive data have no choice but to remain backwards compatible :-).

Stephen.

---
Stephen Pascoe  +44 (0)1235 445980
Centre of Environmental Data Archival
STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Patterson [mailto:Timothy.Patterson at eumetsat.int] 
Sent: 24 September 2014 09:16
To: 'Charlie Zender'; CF Metadata Mail List
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CF-2.0 Convention discussion
I'm wondering whether CF Convention 2.0 is the right naming convention to be using to refer to this new branch.
Firstly, as the "classic" CF Convention has moved from 1.0 to 1.7 in 0.1 increments, is the original branch then forced after CF 1.9 to either merge with CF 2.0 or to adopt a new naming convention (1.9, 1.91, 1.92...1.991, 1.992...)?
Secondly, as a newcomer to the CF Convention, if I find documents called CF Convention 1.7 and CF Convention 2.0, I'm probably going to assume that CF 2.0 is the document I should be using.
As an alternative, the new branch could be given a unique name e.g. " CF Conventions Enhanced 1.0" (to imply the use of netCDF-4 enhanced features). Then we could refer to CF Enhanced 1.0 and CF 1.7 or CF Classic 1.7 when we need to differentiate between the two branches.
Regards,
Tim 
---------------------
Dr. Timothy Patterson
Instrument Data Simulation
Product Format Specification
EUMETSAT
Eumetsat-Allee 1
64295 Darmstadt
Germany
-----Original Message-----
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Charlie Zender
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 6:20 PM
To: CF Metadata Mail List
Subject: [CF-metadata] CF-2.0 Convention discussion
I like the idea of a Google Doc to consolidate the issue list.
Whether it will prove unwieldy is hard to guess.
A 3-month period for listing use-cases seems reasonable.
It seems more CF-like to be use-case driven than to presume the entire netCDF4 data model will be adopted.
This has the advantage of parsimony--only implement what is necessary. From a technical point-of-view, however, it is advantageous to know already what netCDF4 can and cannot easily do. In my view the intersection of important use-cases and netCDF4 capabilities is the "sweet spot" for CF-2.0.
Once the smoke clears I may summarize use-cases for handling ensembles/replicants and for handling large integer numbers. These could raise the issues of having groups and 64-bit ints in CF-2.0.
But first let's settle the framework for discussions.
Best,
Charlie
--
Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci.
University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'( _______________________________________________
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
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.

Received on Wed Sep 24 2014 - 02:54:02 BST