[Esip-documentation] ACDD comments

[Bob Simons - NOAA Federal via Esip-documentation]

On 2014-09-18 1:20 PM, Signell, Richard wrote:
> John,
>
> > * The summary is now recommended to include the geospatial coverage 
> of the
> > data, and the temporal coverage of the data. But "Maintenance of 
> Metadata"
> > acknowledges the importance of software tool revising the metadata, 
> notably
> > the geospatiotemporal attributes when the dataset is modified. It is
> > reasonable/possible for software tools to maintain e.g., 
> geospatial_lon_min
> > and max, but it is not reasonable to expect software tools to 
> maintain the
> > same values that occur within plaintext in the summary. Please 
> remove the
> > green sentence above.
> >
> >
> > This was extensively discussed on multiple threads, and Maintenance of
> > Metadata was the result. The plurality seem to favor leaving the 
> green in,
> > and I don't know of anyone other than yourself still requesting it be
> > removed.
>
> I think all Bob is asking is that bounding information not be 
> contained in the free-text "summary" attribute, which totally makes 
> sense.  There would be no programatic way to keep that up to date as 
> the dataset is subset.
Yes. Thank you, Rich.
>
> >
> >
> > * cdm_data_type should not be tied to
> > 
> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/thredds/current/tds/catalog/InvCatalogSpec.html#dataType
> > which is out-of-date and obsolete .
>
>
> >
> >
> > Are you sure? I thought several on this list were still using it.
>
> yes, ncISO uses cdm_data_type to decide how to calculate the bounds 
> from gridded or unstructured grid data.
>
>
> > *** Deprecation is always a bad idea. It is far better to improve the
> > definitions of existing attributes. CF understands this and has an 
> excellent
> > history of not deprecating terms. ACDD should follow CF's example. 
>  Those of
> > use who deal with the metadata for 1000's of datasets and for software
> > really don't want changes that break the existing metadata in those 
> dataset
> > and in that software.
> >
> >
> > I think ACDD is an entirely different kind of standard than CF, in that
> > attributes in ACDD are all recommended, whereas you can not use a CF 
> name
> > that is not in the vocabulary and still be compliant. So I don't 
> think the
> > analogy applies -- if someone still wants to use the old attributes, 
> which
> > people strongly felt had particular (conflicting) meanings, then 
> they can
> > still do so.
>
> There are thousands of datasets what have ISO metadata content 
> generated from ACDD attributes via ncISO.    Would these ISO need to 
> be regenerated, or would deprecation mean making changes to ncISO?
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
>
> -- 
> Dr. Richard P. Signell   (508) 457-2229
> USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
> Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598

-- 
Sincerely,

Bob Simons
IT Specialist
Environmental Research Division
NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center
1352 Lighthouse Ave
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2079
Phone: (831)333-9878 (Changed 2014-08-20)
Fax: (831)648-8440
Email: bob.simons at noaa.gov

The contents of this message are mine personally and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the
Government or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-documentation/attachments/20140918/0854b4e5/attachment.html>