[Esip-documentation] ACDD comments --

[Bob Simons - NOAA Federal via Esip-documentation]

I don't know what to say about cdm_data_type if a previous version of 
ACDD specified a specific (out-of-date) reference list. Eeek! What a mess.

I think adding featureType to ACDD is trouble. We musn't conflict with 
CF, but even defining featureType as "See the CF definition of 
featureType" is trouble because different data providers might be using 
different combinations of the CF version and ACDD version in the same 
file.  The whole thing is trouble.  Let's say/commit to as little as 
possible until CF and Unidata straighten things out. CF at least tries 
to be backward compatible.

On 2014-09-19 2:16 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 which is out-of-date and obsolete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 that list is out-of-date.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
>

-- 
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/20140922/5ebc5b17/attachment-0001.html>