[Esip-documentation] ACDD 2-3 question

Wed May 21 15:38:19 EDT 2014

Hi again -

One caveat on ACDD 1.2, the 'working' version.

We're recommending that the Conventions attribute contain a list
of conventions to which the data file adheres, so an ACDD-1.2 file
might have a Conventions attribute like 'CF 1.6, ACDD-1.2'.

This is taken from the NetCDF Users' Guide, and was approved by the
CF committee, so will be in the next version of CF, 1.7. That hasn't been
released yet, though, so technically, following ACDD-1.2's recommendation
makes a file non-compliant with CF. As of CF 1.6, ONLY 'CF 1.6' may be in
the Conventions attribute.

I'm already using this anyway, and the CF checker does complain a little,
but I think we may as well leave this in place, unless anyone objects.

Cheers - Nan

PS Our text says: 'A list of the conventions followed by the dataset; blank
space separated is recommended but commas should be used if any
convention name contains blanks. For files that comply with this version
of ACDD, include the term ACDD-1.2.'

On 5/21/14 3:20 PM, John Graybeal via Esip-documentation wrote:
> Hi Anna,
>
> As a significant driver I'll offer one opinion. Caveat emptor.
>> 1. Is this the best version to be using? (They will NOT be using groups)
> Arguably, yes it is the best version to be using, but it is not 
> approved at this point. I would say the status is 'stalled in a mostly 
> happy place' -- with one exception, I haven't heard any complaints 
> about this current 'Working' draft, which has been around for many 
> months now and has been carefully reviewed by at least one person.  I 
> *think* that all that is required for approval is for Derrick Snowden 
> (or someone he designates, ideally not the principle updater, hint 
> hint) to call a discussion/next steps meeting, at which any remaining 
> issues can be raised and resolved.
>
> There is only one open issue under discussion, namely whether the 
> adoption of summary metadata for geospatiotemporal ranges is good, 
> tolerable, or bad. It is hard to know for sure whether that will be 
> changed (I suspect it will not, just from comments so far). It is my 
> hope that the fact all these attributes are *recommended*, not 
> *required*, means that it will be acceptable to leave this material 
> in, perhaps with precautionary language (a proposal for which has 
> already been added).  We haven't had a discussion in the group yet 
> about this topic.
>
> So if you have a tolerance for the risks above (that it might never 
> get approved, that it might end up a little different), I'd say yes, 
> because there are a LOT of clarifications and improvements. (Says the 
> significant driver.)  You can cite the specific version number, 1.2.3, 
> as a way to be extra clear about versions. (This will be version 2 
> when approved.)
>> 2.Are the date_modified,date_created,date_issued fields deprecated in favor of the following elementsdate_content_modified, date_values_modified, date_product_generated fields?
> Yes.  I don't love the word deprecated; but on reflection, this may be 
> another issue to take care of, given we did explicitly 'deprecate' one 
> term already. Good question, thanks for bringing it up.
>
> Nan's recollection of why these changed is correct. I came up with the 
> new language with her and a few others, as we felt the previous 
> language (and names) were ambiguous.
>
> John
>
>
>
> On May 21, 2014, at 11:06, Anna Milan - NOAA Federal via 
> Esip-documentation <esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org 
> <mailto:esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> I'm helping DSCOVR define their netCDF elements and am using the guidance from this ACDD version:
>> http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_%28ACDD%29_Working
>>
>>
>> 1. Is this the best version to be using? (They will NOT be using groups)
>> 2.Are the date_modified,date_created,date_issued fields deprecated in favor of the following elementsdate_content_modified, date_values_modified, date_product_generated fields?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your response!
>> Anna
>> *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
>> Anna.Milan at noaa.gov <mailto:Anna.Milan at noaa.gov>, 303-497-5099
>> NOAA/NESDIS/NGDC
>>
>> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/metadata/emma
>> *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
>> _______________________________________________
>> Esip-documentation mailing list
>> Esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org 
>> <mailto:Esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org>
>> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation
>
> John Graybeal
> jbgraybeal at mindspring.com <mailto:jbgraybeal at mindspring.com>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-documentation mailing list
> Esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-documentation/attachments/20140521/c230d73f/attachment.html>