[Esip-documentation] ACDD comments --

[Signell, Richard via Esip-documentation]

I guess we need to define ACDD_data_type, then!  ;-)

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Bob Simons - NOAA Federal via
Esip-documentation <esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
> 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 specified a specific (out-of-date) reference list.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>
> 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 which is out-of-date and obsolete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 out-of-date.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.
> <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-documentation mailing list
> Esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation
>



-- 
Dr. Richard P. Signell   (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598