[Esip-documentation] Strategic plan and ACDD

[Nan Galbraith]

Hi all -

Sorry, I've been out of town for awhile and I'm just catching up on email.

I agree that although there may be a future version of ACDD with a richer
structure, the terms and concepts should be shared, and a flattening
mechanism decided on. I don't see why we'd want to actually freeze the
NetCDF3 version of ACDD at any point.

I'm adding to the list of open issues on the talk page; starting with 
the still-open
question about the term cdm_data_type. We've discussed this via email, 
I'll see if
I can review that thread. Not sure what else needs to be settled before 
we can
declare victory.

Derrick, is the list you refer to in your last paragraph the list of 
term, or open issues,
or ... something else?

I'm heading to sea in a few weeks, I'd love to get V 1.2.1  published 
before then.

Thanks - Nan



On 1/17/14 3:42 PM, Derrick Snowden - NOAA Federal wrote:
> Ted,
>
> As one of the voices that was pushing to tidy up what we're calling 
> the v1.2 ACDD, I inherited the role of organizing the steering 
> committee.  I've struggled to do much more than organize the 
> occasional telcon.  I'll make a suggestion and if it's accepted by the 
> steering group then I'll follow through with organizing a call to vote 
> on the current content.
>
> On the development page 
> (http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_%28ACDD%29_Working) 
> John Graybeal has done a great job summarizing his recommendations.  
> If you look at the Talk page, you'll see a list of outstanding issues 
> and the conversation that John has mostly carried out with himself.  
> You and Nan have weighed in a bit and I made one or two comments. 
> Since there is no other activity, I conclude that John, Nan, and 
> yourself are the only ones who've given much thought to the terms and 
> definitions during the last year.
>
> I propose that John, Nan, and Ted reply all indicating that they are 
> satisfied with the current state of the list.  When I hear from all 
> three of you I'll convene a meeting to vote, increment the version to 
> 1.3, update the wiki, and declare victory.  Of course, if someone else 
> cares to provide a counter proposal or argument for why the current 
> list is insufficient then we can reconsider.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Derrick
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Ted Habermann 
> <thabermann at hdfgroup.org <mailto:thabermann at hdfgroup.org>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks to all of you that participated in the strategic plan
>     discussion yesterday. The plan is available at
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/10lKi88rReL0rF4WhZ8yEMabBoQTuALX-vu2VXBVokCo/edit#heading=h.1lkb0jjpy3xb.
>     I think it is open for editing...
>
>     One question that came up in the discussion was the future of
>     ACDD... We have agreed that this future involves two paths: a
>     final netCDF Classic compliant version (1.2) and a new netCDF
>     extended / HDF / ISO compliant version (2.0). Ed and I both
>     expressed some interest in pursuing 2.0, but we still need someone
>     to shepard 1.2 forward... Any volunteers?
>
>     Ted
>


-- 
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith        Information Systems Specialist *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group            Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543                 (508) 289-2444 *
*******************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-documentation/attachments/20140121/d71cff7c/attachment.html>