[Esip-documentation] ACDD 2-3 question

Wed May 21 16:30:40 EDT 2014

All,

I had raised similar questions as Anna's on ACDD version status at the
March telecon. Which version is currently a candidate for receiving review
comments, and how can one submit comments on that version? I'd rather not
take the time reviewing and submitting comments for the wrong version. I am
looking at the version history table on this page:
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Category:Attribute_Conventions_Dataset_Discovery

Also, I didn't realize that some of the date attributes had been
re-named/purposed in 1-2. Is a rationale being captured somewhere
explaining these kinds of changes between versions?

Thanks.

Phil

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Nan Galbraith via Esip-documentation <
esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

>  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 elements date_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> 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 elements date_content_modified, date_values_modified, date_product_generated fields?
>
>  Thanks in advance for your response!
>
>  Anna
> *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
> 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
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation
>
>
>  John Graybeal
> jbgraybeal at mindspring.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-documentation mailing listEsip-documentation at lists.esipfed.orghttp://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                                *
> *******************************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-documentation mailing list
> Esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation
>
>

-- 
Philip R. Jones
Team ERT/STG
Government Contractor
National Climatic Data Center, NOAA NESDIS
Veach-Baley Federal Building
151 Patton Ave.
Asheville, NC 28801-5001 USA
Voice: +1 828-271-4472  FAX: +1 828-271-4328
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-documentation/attachments/20140521/a0f2165a/attachment-0001.html>