David,
I don't recall there being a clear resolution. I think the difference
between the ensemble-oriented use case (which I believe is Charlie's
greatest driver) and the hierarchical use case may be big enough that we
may need to provide room for both. In the case that we provide room for
both, I think we would need a mechanism such as an attribute to indicate
which scheme was in use.
Grace and peace,
Jim
[image: CICS-NC] <
http://www.cicsnc.org/>Visit us on
Facebook <
http://www.facebook.com/cicsnc> *Jim Biard*
*Research Scholar*
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC <
http://cicsnc.org/>
North Carolina State University <
http://ncsu.edu/>
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information <
http://ncdc.noaa.gov/>
*formerly NOAA?s National Climatic Data Center*
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
e: jbiard at cicsnc.org
o: +1 828 271 4900
*Connect with us on Facebook for climate
<
http://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIclimate> and ocean and geophysics
<
http://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIoceangeo> information, and follow us on
Twitter at _at_NOAANCEIclimate
<
http://www.twitter.com/NOAANCEIclimate>and _at_NOAANCEIocngeo
<
http://www.twitter.com/NOAANCEIocngeo>.*
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 3:55 AM, David Hassell <david.hassell at ncas.ac.uk>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> From memory of the meeting last September, it was agreed that there should
> be a defined mapping from a grouped dataset to a non-grouped (i.e.
> compliant under the current conventions) dataset. Defining this mapping
> forces you to decide on what sort of hierarchy is allowed when looking for
> variables.
>
> For example, when looking for a coordinate variable, should you be
> restricted to looking in the parent, grandparent, etc. groups of the group
> that you are in; or should you be allowed to look in sibling, cousin,
> second cousin twice removed, etc. groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/
> wiki/Cousin#/media/File:CousinTree.svg).
>
> Again from memory, the former is simplest and least ambiguous, but
> datasets already exist with relationships of the latter sort.
>
> I can't remember if there was consensus on the idea of being able to
> re-map from a non-grouped view to the original, grouped dataset.
>
> All the best,
>
> David
>
>
> On 26 March 2018 at 21:23, Jim Biard <jbiard at cicsnc.org> wrote:
>
>> Erik,
>>
>> Charlie's proposal is heavily oriented towards ensembles. I tend to favor
>> hierarchical scoping, but every option has one sort of weakness or another.
>>
>> Grace and peace,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> [image: CICS-NC] <http://www.cicsnc.org/>Visit us on
>> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/cicsnc> *Jim Biard*
>> *Research Scholar*
>> Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC <http://cicsnc.org/>
>> North Carolina State University <http://ncsu.edu/>
>> NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
>> <http://ncdc.noaa.gov/>
>> *formerly NOAA?s National Climatic Data Center*
>> 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=151+Patton+Ave,+Asheville,+NC+28801&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> e: jbiard at cicsnc.org
>> o: +1 828 271 4900 <(828)%20271-4900>
>>
>> *Connect with us on Facebook for climate
>> <http://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIclimate> and ocean and geophysics
>> <http://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIoceangeo> information, and follow us on
>> Twitter at _at_NOAANCEIclimate
>> <http://www.twitter.com/NOAANCEIclimate>and _at_NOAANCEIocngeo
>> <http://www.twitter.com/NOAANCEIocngeo>.*
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Erik Quaeghebeur <
>> E.R.G.Quaeghebeur at tudelft.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Daniel,
>>>
>>>
>>> Charlie Zender has led the effort on a draft extension for using groups
>>>> in CF, which I think is very important. You can find it here:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KK6IZ2ZmpaUTVgrw-GlFd6al
>>>> mppjvGz6D7nxVTO3BtI/edit
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, that is an interesting read. (Just skimmed the start for now.)
>>>
>>> [?], or at least indicate your support if they're in line with your
>>>> requirements. It sounds like your setup would essentially be using an
>>>> intuitive "scoping" mechanism to make higher-level metadata "visible"
>>>> "from" groups lower down the tree, goes in the direction of work done so
>>>> far..
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes this scoping approach is what I had in mind. I support that.
>>>
>>> The lateral search in case the referred to coordinates are not found
>>> higher in the hierarchy is asking for trouble, though, IMHO. How can users
>>> know the search order? It makes it dangerous to reuse names of (coordinate)
>>> variables, forcing unique names throughout, negating one of the advantages
>>> of a hierarchical approach: structure to order instead of overly long
>>> naming conventions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Erik
>>>
>>> --
>>> https://ac.erikquaeghebeur.name
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> David Hassell
> National Centre for Atmospheric Science
> Department of Meteorology, University of Reading,
> Earley Gate, PO Box 243, Reading RG6 6BB
> Tel: +44 118 378 5613 <+44%20118%20378%205613>
> http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20180327/429218c6/attachment.html>
Received on Tue Mar 27 2018 - 07:16:00 BST
