<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Nan et al.,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am a bit confused about the term publisher_orcid as ORCIDs are identifiers for people, not organizations. It is more appropriate to give a ROR to a publisher than an ORCID.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I agree that a generic *_id with a *_id_type approach is best as it gives some flexibility as to the type without baking the type into the name of the attribute. In many cases the type can be expressed as a URI like <a href="https://orcid.org" class="">https://orcid.org</a>, which is generally good.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Identifiers for research groups are just developing at this point in time. I’m not sure that there is any persistent winner. One project that the Documentation Cluster led recently was the Identifying ESIP Connections project. It provided a lot of information about identifiers that may be helpful… see <a href="https://wiki.esipfed.org/Category:Identifying_ESIP_Connections" class="">https://wiki.esipfed.org/Category:Identifying_ESIP_Connections</a>.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There seems to be some confusion about what ESIP clusters are and how they operate. They are interested people that form a group to work on a particular aspect of a problem while they are interested. The definition in <a href="https://esip.figshare.com/articles/online_resource/How_to_Cluster_in_ESIP/12827963/1" class="">https://esip.figshare.com/articles/online_resource/How_to_Cluster_in_ESIP/12827963/1</a> says: ESIP Clusters are not intended to exist in perpetuity. They are proposed when a need or goal arises and are spun down when the goal has been achieved. In general, clusters have at least 3 phases in their life cycle: initiation phase, active phase, and hiatus phase. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If there are people that are interested in updating ACDD, they should revive the documentation cluster and do the work. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ted</div><div class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 22, 2021, at 1:23 PM, Nan Galbraith via Esip-documentation <<a href="mailto:esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org" class="">esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
Hi Chris and all - <br class="">
<br class="">
I'm very interested in these new identity terms, which we would like
to <br class="">
add to the OceanSITES netCDF specification; the OS spec is built on
CF <br class="">
and ACDD 1.2. <br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">the need to include identifiers (ORCID,
ResearchID, AuthorID, etc) for the person listed in the creator
attributes and the people listed in the contributor attributes. </blockquote>
<br class="">
We use the ACDD terms, creator_*, publisher_*, contributer_*, (where<br class="">
the * is name, email, url, etc) and our current manual adds the
modifier<br class="">
_orcid - at least to the publisher field (not sure why the others
seem to <br class="">
be missing, I'll look into that). <br class="">
From the manual:<br class="">
<br class="">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" class="MsoNormalTable" width="463" height="55" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<th valign="top" height="12" align="center" class=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">name </font> </th>
<th valign="top" height="12" align="center" class=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">example</font></th>
<th valign="top" height="12" align="center" class=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">note</font></th>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes;
height:13.4pt" class="">
<td style="width: 80.1pt; border: 1pt solid black; padding:
0in 5.4pt;" width="107" valign="top" height="12" class=""> <font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">publisher_orcid<span style="" class=""></span></span><br class="">
</font> </td>
<td style="width: 122.05pt; border-color: black black black
currentcolor; border-style: solid solid solid none;
border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-image: none 100% /
1 / 0 stretch; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" width="163" valign="top" height="12" class=""> <font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">0000-0003-0228-9795<span style="" class=""></span></span><br class="">
</font> </td>
<td style="width: 255.05pt; border-color: black black black
currentcolor; border-style: solid solid solid none;
border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; border-image: none 100% /
1 / 0 stretch; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" width="340" valign="top" height="12" class=""> <font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt;" class="">available from <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://orcid.org/">https://orcid.org/</a><span style="" class=""></span></span><br class="">
</font> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
<br class="">
In reviewing some of my files, though, I see I've also used<br class="">
creator_id = <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8001-6886">"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8001-6886"</a> ; <br class="">
<br class="">
I think that's actually better, because it allows different ID<br class="">
types. There is a group working on a system similar to ORCID<br class="">
that will identify groups - I'd like to see a persistent identifier
for<br class="">
the research group I work in, because I think our data needs to be <br class="">
tracked back to the group, more than to any individual. At some
point<br class="">
we may supply the group name as the publisher, and it would be good
to <br class="">
have a PID for that. <br class="">
<br class="">
Also, I've been looking for the definitions of the roles we used in<br class="">
ACDD. I still believe these definitions can be improved upon, (eg: <br class="">
'creator: the person who created the data') but since they're just
referred <br class="">
to as ISO roles, it's hard to find them these years later.<br class="">
<br class="">
I disagree with Bob Simon on the problems that arise if we change
definitions. <br class="">
If you trust a data writer when he says a file uses ACDD, why on
earth wouldn't<br class="">
you trust him to also document the version? A simple work around, of
course, <br class="">
is to ditch the terms we use for roles, and make new, improved ones.
It can<br class="">
still be ACDD. <br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Last item - does anyone think ACDD could be moved to the Discovery
cluster? <br class="">
At least in theory, it was originally all about discovery.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards - Nan<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/14/21 5:17 PM, John Graybeal via
Esip-documentation wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:E40F486F-7470-4445-81FD-8FB1D0CA1643@sonic.net" class=""> Megan,
Ted,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">To clarify the history, the ESIP Documentation
Cluster did accept responsibility for managing this
specification, did they not? I think that is not a role that
ESIP should (can afford to?) let fall on the floor, regardless
of the current status of the Cluster.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I don't think you were saying that would happen, I
just wanted to be sure that's where things stand in terms of
'ownership' of the ACDD standardization process.
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">John<br class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Oct 14, 2021, at 12:09 PM, Megan Carter
<<a href="mailto:megancarter@esipfed.org" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">megancarter@esipfed.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Hi Bob and Others,
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">I would like to clarify that the ESIP
Documentation Cluster has been on hiatus for
several months now. They have not been having
regular meetings and, as far as I know, are not
having discussions of ACDD outside of this thread.
If anyone is interested in this area and would
like to start organizing Documentation Cluster
meetings again, that would certainly be possible.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best,</div>
<div class="">Megan</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Megan Carter Orlando</div>
<div class="">ESIP Community Director</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 14, 2021
at 3:00 PM Bob Simons - NOAA Federal via
Esip-documentation <<a href="mailto:esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org" target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">John, you
make it sound so easy, but there have been no
changes since 2014.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">
<div class="gmail_default">Regarding "<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">They* would not necessarily have to
discuss any other change,</span>":</div>
<div class="gmail_default">There are several
pending requests for changes. It would be odd
to just consider one person's request and not
consider the requests of other people who have
been waiting longer.</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Related: do we want
to start releasing a series of versions of
ACDD, e.g., one per change? Isn't it better to
do the changes in batches, like almost every
other standard?</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">When the
Documentation Cluster decides to investigate
changing ACDD, I really hope they widely
advertise the meetings where changes to ACDD
will be considered so relevant parties don't
miss out. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 13,
2021 at 5:53 PM John Graybeal <<a href="mailto:jbgraybeal@sonic.net" target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">jbgraybeal@sonic.net</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">Matthew,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks for this, it simplifies
the answers a lot!
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Short answer is that (as I
understand it) the ACDD conventions are
'managed' by the ESIP Documentation
Cluster, and to start the process of
adding an attribute to those conventions
you would make the request to that
cluster. It's my hope that the cluster
would relatively quickly form a team and
process to support the request. They*
would not necessarily have to discuss any
other change, and other than formalizing
what process they want to follow, it could
be quite quick to decide. (Posting updated
documents might take longer!) It could be
a valuable exercise for the Documentation
Cluster and community, in my humble
opinion.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">When you say "an attribute
explicitly for people identifiers", you
are right that ACDD allowed this use but
purposefully left it ambiguous in the
creator_url. At some point, if you want to
make ACDD less ambiguous, the amount of
duplicate content starts going up because
of backward-compatibility requirements,
and maybe you want a new path that's
incompatible with all the existing
metadata. (That's what we ran into last
time.)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">You can certainly add a
contributor_url, though nothing preclused
using a URL for contributor_name. But I
agree a URL would be good. (Or maybe these
days, an IRI. And be sure you allow
multiples! and roles for each! oops, going
beyond my mandate :->)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Finally, totally agree the
metadata profile doesn't go outside of the
ACDD conventions, it's fine really. I just
want to encourage individual users to get
that uniquely identifiable recognition
too!</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Very clarified, and appreciate
closing the loop on this question. Someone
from the Documentation Cluster may wish to
comment from this point. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">John</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">* I'm a member of the
Documentation Cluster but have not often
had time to participate, alas. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Oct 13, 2021, at 6:06
AM, Mathew Biddle - NOAA Affiliate
<<a href="mailto:mathew.biddle@noaa.gov" target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">mathew.biddle@noaa.gov</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Bob, John,
and Chris,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I just joined this
list yesterday, so I'm just
seeing Bob's response now. I
wholeheartedly agree with all of
your comments, thank you for
walking through your logic on
updating existing
attributes/definitions. I think
there might have been some
mischaracterization of what it
is Chris was asking for so I'd
like to take a step back. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The problem: the
Animal Telemetry Network (ATN)
is looking to collect persistent
identifiers for people
(preferably using ORCiD, but
other options are available).
ATN would like to include those
identifiers in the netCDF
metadata at the appropriate
location. So, we did a quick
search through ACDD and didn't
see an attribute explicitly for
people identifiers. So, my first
response is that this might be
something worthwhile to add to
the upstream conventions, how
might we do that?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Where we stand:
After discussing with John on
the #marinedata slack channel
(thanks for monitoring that
channel BTW!) I was reminded of
the ACDD 1.3 <a href="https://wiki.esipfed.org/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_1-3#creator_url" target="_blank" class="">creator_url</a>
attribute, which will suit the
ATNs purpose. See that
discussion in <a href="https://github.com/ioos/ioos-atn-data/issues/24#issuecomment-937836068" target="_blank" class="">this
ticket</a>. However, it would
also be beneficial if we could
supplement the ACDD 1.3
recommended attributes with a <b class="">contributor_url</b>
attribute which doesn't exist
now. This would be an addition
to the existing attributes, not
a change to definitions or
attribute names. So, the
question becomes, how do we
contribute/start a conversation
on adding a <b class="">new</b> attribute
to the ACDD conventions? Is this
even possible?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">As for the IOOS
Metadata Profile v1.2
description for what goes in
the creator_url, I'll discuss it
with the team. From how I read
it, it's not going outside of
the ACDD 1.3 conventions. It's
providing more explicit guidance
as to how the IOOS community
should use it (maybe the
creator_type should always be
'institution' for the IOOS
profile to make that connection
more clear). </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I hope this
clarifies things.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks everyone for
your valuable input.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Matt</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:49 PM
Work Sonic via
Esip-documentation <<a href="mailto:esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org" target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">Well said, I agree
with all of your statements
here. (Well, except for the
part where you said "<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">And they are
forgetting about all the
consumers of data files who
have to deal with different
versions </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif" class="">of a</span><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class=""> standard that have
different attribute names
and definitions." I don't
think any of us forgot about
those people—many of us were
those people who had to deal
with existing data sets—but
we had varying opinions
about whether breaking
changes were a good idea. In
the end, the group decided
that for that version, we
would not make any breaking
changes.)</span>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">I expect Chris
has a pretty clear picture
at this point! :-)</font></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">Thanks Bob for
the input.</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"><br class="">
</font></div>
<div class=""><font class="" face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">John</font></div>
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Oct 12,
2021, at 6:38 AM, Bob
Simons - NOAA Federal
<<a href="mailto:bob.simons@noaa.gov" target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bob.simons@noaa.gov</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Regarding "<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">IOOS
had recommended
creator_url be
...</span>":</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">IOOS can recommend whatever they
want, but it
doesn't change the
ACDD 1.3
definition of
"creator_url"
which is </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">"The URL of the <b class="">person</b>
(or other creator
type specified by
the creator_type
attribute)
principally
responsible for
creating this
data." [emphasis
added]</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">and which seems to be directly at
odds with the IOOS
recommendation.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Regarding "<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">at
least one major
user would not
accept any
changes to
existing ACDD
attributes that
would invalidate
any use that
followed a
previous version</span>"
and the desire of
some people to
make major changes
to ACDD:</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">The person resisting changes to
existing attribute
names and
definitions was
me. I think the
reasons for that
should be obvious:</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">This community of NOAA (especially
NCEI with its
archive), NASA,
and hundreds of
other groups, has
100's of thousands
of datasets and
100's of millions
of files using the
ACDD terms as
defined in the
various versions
1.0 - 1.3 of the
ACDD standard. If
you change one of
the attribute
names or
definitions:</div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<ul class="">
<li class=""><font class="" face="arial,
sans-serif">At
best you
introduce a
complication
(a file's
reader has to
be aware of
the difference
between ACDD
versions and
interpret the
attribute
differently
according to
the stated
ACDD version).
That means
crosswalks to
other metadata
formats need
to be more
sophisticated
in order to
deal with the
differences
between ACDD
versions. That
might not be
too bad for
the changes in
one version of
ACDD, but what
about after
5,6,7 versions
of ACDD? </font></li>
<li class=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif" class="">You introduce uncertainty:
Did the file's
creator
properly
understand the
differences
between how
the attribute
was different
versions of
ACDD? This
makes the
crosswalks
much harder to
write.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">You can see both of those problems
already (although
with minor
consequences) with
the<font class="" face="arial,
sans-serif"> pointless
change in the
spelling of the
"</font><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">acknowledgment"
(the US spelling
of the word) in
pre-1.3 versions
of ACDD to
"acknowledgement"
(the British
spelling) in
ACDD 1.3. It is
now common to
see files
claiming to be
ACDD 1.3
compliant with </span><font class="" face="arial,
sans-serif">"</font><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">acknowledgment"
(incorrect) and
others using </span><font class="" face="arial,
sans-serif">"</font><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">acknowledgement"
(correct). </span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">It
should be
obvious that if
a definition
changed (instead
of the spelling
of the attribute
name), it would
be a far more
complex
situation where
the reader must
then guess what
the file creator
intended.</span><br class="">
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">This
situation
highlights
something else:
there is a huge
difference
between the
perspective of a
person creating
a new data file
for a new
dataset, and a
person reading
files from
various
sources. </span><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">A person
creating a new
data file for a
new dataset has
no prior
constraints. All
they want to do
is express the
metadata content
into the file
using the
standard. But
everyone and
every project
has different
needs. For them,
it's easy to get
frustrated with
a standard
because it
doesn't fit
their idea of
what the perfect
metadata
standard would
be. Given a
blank slate and
working alone,
everyone would
create a
different
standard. The
hard part of
making the
standard (and it
was hard) is
that we had to
reconcile all
these different
ideas about what
the </span><i style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">perfect</i><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class=""> metadata
standard would
be. So "perfect"
gets thrown out
(since it is
impossible) and
"acceptable
compromise" is
the best we can
hope for. </span><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">(Yes, as my wife
says,
"compromise is
when nobody is
happy".)</span><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class=""> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">People
making ACDD 1.3
had very diverse
ideas about what
topics should be
addressed, what
the attribute
names should be,
and especially
what the
definitions
should be.
Unfortunately,
some people
naturally retain
this idea that
we should revamp
the standard,
but they are
forgetting about
all the other
people who would
revamp the
standard in a
different way.
And they are
forgetting about
all the
consumers of
data files who
have to deal
with different
versions </span>of
a<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class="">
standard that
have different
attribute names
and definitions</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">As a
great example of
not changing
attribute names
or definitions
but just adding
new attribute
names and
definitions,
look at CF,
which has been
quite stable
through 9(?)
versions. The
result is that a
writer of a file
with CF metadata
can reliably
write attributes
to the file as
they have been
for years
(although
periodically
adding new
attributes to
their
vocabulary), and
a reader of a
file with CF
metadata can
pretty reliably
ignore the
stated CF
version and just
see what
attributes are
present. If a
given attribute
is present, it's
definition is
known. Thank
goodness!</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Ethan
Davis had the
remarkable
luxury of having
a blank slate
and (I think) of
working alone
when he created
ACDD 1.0. But
now, forever
more, new
versions of ACDD
will be
painfully hashed
out by numerous
people working
toward an
acceptable
compromise. On
behalf of other
consumers of
data files and
on behalf of
software
developers who
write software
that processes
data files,
please, please,
please, let's
keep existing
attribute names
and definitions
stable. If you
want to add new
attribute names
and definitions
to address new
concepts, go for
it. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Here's
a compromise
(but where
everyone is
happy) for all
of you who
really want to
make massive
changes to ACDD
(essentially
starting from a
blank slate): go
for it! Create
your own
metadata
standard (just
as Ethan did
with ACDD 1.0),
but just give it
a different
name, not
"ACDD". After
all, that is
what your new
metadata
standard is: a
new metadata
standard. If it
is a great
standard, as
ACDD 1.0 was, it
will fill a
niche and be
widely adopted
and possibly
supplant ACDD
(if it addresses
the same
issues). But
effectively
killing off the
current ACDD 1.x
by labelling
your new and
very different
standard ACDD
2.0, is wrong
unless everyone
in the ESIP
Documentation
Cluster agrees
that it is time
to kill off ACDD
1.x and go down
that different
route (and you
probably won't
get my vote). I
like ACDD (1.0
to 1.3) and
its stability is
incredibly
valuable to me.
I have a lot
invested in ACDD
1.3.. I know I'm
not alone --
think of NASA
and NCEI with
millions of
archived
files with ACDD
1.x metadata and
all the software
that writes and
reads these
files.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Best
wishes.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Mon, Oct 11, 2021
at 4:33 PM John
Graybeal via
Esip-documentation
<<a href="mailto:esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org" target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">Hi
Chris,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I
believe there
have been 3,
maybe 4
threads in the
past 2-3 years
about updating
ACDD. I
wouldn't say
any of them
were as
action-oriented
as
yours—sometimes
interest in a
particular
attribute,
other times
general
interest in
whether it's
being
maintained.
None has gone
so far as to
say "I want to
open a new
round of
discussion for
ACDD." The
list archive
may have some
details. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I
note that
nothing
*precludes*
your using
those
identifiers
for the people
or
organizations
in the
contributor
attributes,
all those
identifiers
can be named
via URLs,
which is
consistent
with the ACDD
spec. What are
you trying to
do exactly
that isn't
already
possible?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">Within
the past week,
there was a
question in
the
#marinedata
Slack channel
of the ESIP
workspace
about ORCiDs
in netCDF,
followed by a
long
discussion
about the ACDD
1.3
creator_url.
In the course
of that
discussion it
was mentioned
that IOOS had
recommended
creator_url be</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">The
URL of
the institution that
collected the
data. Note
that this
should always
reference an
institution
URL, and not a
personal URL,
even
if creator_type=person.</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="">I
wasn't there
so I can't
fairly assess
that guidance,
but it is
sufficiently,
umm,
unexpected
that it'd be
nice to get
your needs met
by ACDD
directly.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">That
said, two
considerations
about ACDD:
(1) At the
last update
round, at
least one
major user
would not
accept any
changes to
existing ACDD
attributes
that would
invalidate any
use that
followed a
previous
version. So
our ability to
update certain
fields the way
many members
wanted to was
effectively
blocked. (2)
With ESIP's
Documentation
Cluster(Committee?) as the current 'standards body' for ACDD, you'd be
starting down
a path that
has not been
travelled yet,
to my
knowledge.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I
hope that is
the right
level of
information to
share in
response to
your query! I
think it would
be great for
ACDD to get
another round,
especially if
it was clear
that a break
from the past
was necessary
to improve
metadata
quality from
what the
current
standard can
support.
Obviously that
would open up
quite a number
of questions
that just
might go
beyond your
own interest.
;-)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">John</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On
Oct 11, 2021,
at 1:02 PM,
Chris Turner
via
Esip-documentation
<<a href="mailto:esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org" target="_blank" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Hello
all,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I'm
curious about
any movement
or interest to
update the
ACDD. I know
that v1.3 is 6
years old, and
the ESIP wiki
makes it looks
like there
hasn't been
interest or
discussion in
this since
2017. Is there
still any
intent to
develop v2.0?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">My
sudden
interest in
this comes
from the need
to include
identifiers
(ORCID,
ResearchID,
AuthorID, etc)
for the person
listed in the
creator
attributes and
the people
listed in the
contributor
attributes.
I'd like to do
this in a
community-vetted
way, but but
if there isn't
an active
community
working on
ACDD anymore,
we can look at
including
these
attributes in
one of the
netCDF
community
profiles -
probably the
the <a href="https://ioos.github.io/ioos-metadata/ioos-metadata-profile-v1-2.html" target="_blank" class="">IOOS metadata profile</a>. </div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks
for whatever
you can tell
me.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">-
Chris</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
-- <br class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Chris
Turner</div>
<div class="">Data
Librarian
| Axiom Data
Science</div>
<div class=""><a href="mailto:chris@axiomalaska.com" target="_blank" class="">chris@axiomdatascience.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 *
*******************************************************</pre>
</div>
<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Esip-documentation mailing list<br class="">To start a new topic: <a href="mailto:Esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org" class="">Esip-documentation@lists.esipfed.org</a><br class="">To unsubscribe and manage prefs: <a href="https://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation" class="">https://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation</a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>