[CF-metadata] Another CF complaince checker -- from IOOS --- with some issues

From: Antonio S. Cofiño <antonio.cofino>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 14:14:18 +0100

On 20/07/17 14:45, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Martin
>
> I don't think it's practicable for the CF community to undertake to verify
> applications as CF-compliant, just as we can't do it with datasets. There are
> many datasets in existence which claim to be CF-compliant but are not.
I'm agree with this. A reference implementation could be provided, but
just as reference.
> However
> for the specific aim of compliance checking, perhaps it would be possible for
> us to maintain a netCDF file containing an example of every possible
> violation of a requirement or recommendation in the CF conformance document,
> and maybe an example of everything which is described as legal e.g. all the
> actual examples in the conventions document, and some more. Accompanying this
> would be a list of the errors and warnings that ought to be found. Thus it
> would be a resource for checking the CF-compliance of CF-compliance checkers!
> These seems achievable in principle to me, but I'm not sure whether we have
> the effort to do it, or whether it would be useful. What do you think?

The most useful, from a point of view of a CF-compliance checker
developer, would be the "wrong" examples and know why. This "wrong"
examples could be useful also to users.
All those examples could be used as an test and quality of control for
CF-checkers.

Regards

Antonio

--
Antonio S. Cofi?o
Associate Professor and Researcher
Grupo de Meteorolog?a de Santander
Dep. of Applied Mathematics and Computer Sciences
Universidad de Cantabria (Spain)
Academic Visitor
National Centre for Atmospheric Science
Department of Meteorology
School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences
University of Reading (UK)
http://antonio.cofino.es
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk -----
>
>> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:37:22 +0000
>> From: martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk
>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: [CF-metadata] Another CF complaince checker -- from IOOS --- with
>> 	some issues
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Following discussions with a colleague (As Stephens) I've taken a look at the IOOS compliance-checker, which contains a module for checking how files comply with the CF convention. I looked at 4 files with known CF errors, and found an average of two erroneous reports per file (listed in an issue which I raised on their github site: https://github.com/ioos/compliance-checker/issues/501 ). There are also ambiguities arising from the fact that they use priority 1 (low) to 3 (high) rather than INFO, WARN, ERROR -- but I haven't gone into all of these in the issue raised.
>>
>> I'm raising it here as well because I'd like to hear other views on the broader question of community tools associated with CF. It is good that people are getting engaged and working through the details of the convention, not so good if they produce and spread misleading information. In its current state, I don't think the IOOS compliance checker is one we would want to approve, but if they fix the 8 problems identified from a morning looking through the results from tests on 4 files, does that make it OK? or, since the 8 problems I've raised come from looking at a small set of files, should we assume that there are many other problems and ask them to do more?
>>
>> regards,
>> Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Received on Fri Jul 21 2017 - 07:14:18 BST