[Esip-documentation] ACDD comments -- featureType

[John Graybeal via Esip-documentation]

Re cdm_data_type and featureType, perhaps we are over-analyzing this. To review key points:

1) There is no conflict between the two of them (you can use both cdm_data_type and featureType without any software blowing up), or either one, or neither one.
2) There is no conflict between versions of either one.
3) We don't actually make featureType a recommended attribute; it is only referenced to clarify the distinction, as some of us were confused by the overlap in terms.
4) The listed terms in cdm_data_type are still the terms understood by THREDDS (so I was told last year anyway).
5) CF featureType seems pretty stable also.  
6) They have redundant concepts, but different purposes -- cdm_data_type supports THREDDS uses, and featureType supports the CF DSG. Some data needed one, some will need the other. 

I originally thought it would be good to have a nice, clear definition of the feature type represented by the data (ACDD_data_type!), but am convinced ACDD is not the place for that. (Those with interest may want to review the CF trac ticket started by Martin Schultz: https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/113. I commend also the analysis that he has put into his wiki (http://redmine.iek.fz-juelich.de/projects/julich_wcs_interface/wiki/MetOcean_data_types). )

So I claim the existing content is appropriate, and propose that we move cdm_data_type down to the Suggested section as a way to reflect current thinking about its importance. 

John





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-documentation/attachments/20140922/da27da24/attachment.html>