[Esip-documentation] ACDD comments --

[John Graybeal via Esip-documentation]

I'm going to start replying to some of these on separate threads. 

I'm consolidating the issues into the Google spreadsheet as we discussed on the call, will publish that 'shortly' (when done).

By the way, sorry for the delayed post of my mail responding to Bob, that mail was written yesterday and got hung up.

On Sep 18, 2014, at 11:50, Bob Simons - NOAA Federal <bob.simons at noaa.gov> wrote:
>>> 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 which is out-of-date and obsolete 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.
> They probably are. That doesn't make it right. Unidata has created several sets of terms over the years. They haven't retracted the old versions.  I'm not saying what the right list of terms is, just that that list is out-of-date. Until Unidata and CF get their act together, it is better for ACDD to not pick a winner.
> Please read this entire exchange:
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2010/048519.html
> which clearly indicates the John Caron (if he is in practice the decider) says about cdm_data_type, which clearly goes beyond the list ACDD is seeking to enshrine.

ACDD picked that winner in a previous version, and I reviewed the CF thread a year ago while trying fix this issue. Because there are many data sets that followed ACDD then (and some still use the cdm_data_type, per Rich), we didn't deprecate the existing attribute. But we did clarify in the definition that there is another attribute called featureType in CF (which is the outcome of the thread you cited, I believe). 

I'd be happy to move cdm_data_type to Suggested instead of Recommended, I think it should no longer be recommended. And maybe that wording needs to be improved, and the featureType attribute explicitly added? But I don't think we should redefine its meaning in a way that would break the previous uses.

John

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-documentation/attachments/20140919/99d6af93/attachment.html>