[Esip-documentation] Documentation Cluster Telecon TODAY

[Nan Galbraith]

Hi Mike and all -

The use of the discrete sampling geometry in CF 1.6 is completely
voluntary; featureType is not a required attribute.

Using that attribute, however, DOES force you to adhere to certain
restrictions on dimensions. Those don't happen to work very well for
my data (long time series from surface moorings, instrumented from
top to bottom) and so, although we consider our files to be 1.6-compliant,
we don't use a featureType attribute.

Cheers -
Nan



On 4/17/14 3:26 PM, Mike McCann wrote:
> I captured the chat. Here it is:
>
>     from John Graybeal to Everyone:
>     http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_1-2_Working
>     from Mike McCann to Ted Habermann (privately):
>     Not seeing a specific CF version number referenced. Doesn't that
>     present an inconsistency e.g. with things like featureType and
>     cdm_data_type?
>     from John Graybeal to Everyone:
>     http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/NetCDF_Utilities_Metadata_Handling
>     from Mike McCann to Everyone:
>     Not seeing a specific CF version number referenced. Doesn't that
>     present an inconsistency e.g. with things like featureType and
>     cdm_data_type?
>     from John Graybeal to Everyone:
>     ah -- potentially it does, though we tried to steer away from
>     those particular conflicts
>     from John Graybeal to Everyone:
>     (the cdm_data_type was explicitly defined as different from the CF
>     featureType)
>     from Ed Armstrong to Everyone:
>     my email is edward.m.armstrong at jpl.nasa.gov
>     <mailto:edward.m.armstrong at jpl.nasa.gov>
>     from Ajay Krishnan to Everyone:
>     Mike, there is a 'Conventions' attribute under Highly Recommended.
>     Wouldn't the CF version number be listed under that?
>     from Mike McCann to Everyone:
>     Correct. But here is the inconsitency: CF-1.5 specifies
>     cdm_data_type with a specific controlled vocabulary, CF-1.6
>     replaced it with featureType and a different controlled
>     vocabulary. If a file follows CF-1.6 and ACDD isn't there an
>     inconsistency?
>
>
> For Discrete Sampling Geometry type data CF-1.6 is a much better 
> convention than 1.5. I think it would be good to not use the older 
> (and somewhat duplicative) terminology,as it is confusing to both 
> metadata writers and readers.
>
> -Mike
>
> --
> Mike McCann
> Software Engineer
> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
> 7700 Sandholdt Road
> Moss Landing, CA 95039-9644
> Voice: 831.775.1769 Fax: 831.775.1736 http://www.mbari.org
>
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:18 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
>
>> In our telecon a side discussion broke out on the chat session, which 
>> I failed to copy but would like to continue. The final question of 
>> the session, from Mike McCann, went something like:
>>
>>> In CF 1.5 there was a cdm_data_type with a specific controlled 
>>> vocabulary; in CF 1.6 it was replaced by feature_type with a 
>>> different controlled vocabulary. Since ACDD doesn't specify what CF 
>>> convention applies, does this represent a potential conflict?
>>
>> With regard to 1.6, I don't believe it represents a conflict because 
>> there is no cdm_data_type in CF 1.6, and the ACDD cdm_data_type is 
>> explicitly different from CF's feature_type.
>>
>> With regard to 1.5, looking at the specification at 
>> http://cf-convention.github.io/1.5.html, I'm not seeing 
>> cdm_data_type. So I may have misquoted Mike, but so far I'm not 
>> seeing a conflict in this item.
>>
>> The overall concern is whether not specifying a corresponding CF 
>> version is a problem for ACDD. I hadn't thought of that, but I don't 
>> know of a conflict -- let me know if anyone comes up with an issue.
>>
>> Mike, all, please feel free to continue the discussion here or off-line.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:48, Ted Habermann <thabermann at hdfgroup.org 
>> <mailto:thabermann at hdfgroup.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> Great…
>>>
>>>
>>> <SignatureSm2.png>
>>>
>>> On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:45 PM, John Graybeal 
>>> <jbgraybeal at mindspring.com <mailto:jbgraybeal at mindspring.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> propose topic "Update re ACDD status"
>>>>
>>>> john
>>>>
>>>>

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