[Esip-documentation] ACDD comments -- featureType

[Bob Simons - NOAA Federal via Esip-documentation]

On 2014-09-22 12:39 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
> 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.
But leaving the definition as is leaves in place the link to THREDDS 
"dataType"
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/projects/THREDDS/tech/catalog/InvCatalogSpec.html#dataType 

which is out-of-date.

And leaving the definition as is leaves in place the link to
NODC guidance <http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/data/formats/netcdf/>. 
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/data/formats/netcdf/
which (although currently probably correct) is a TERRIBLE idea. This is 
a CF term, not an NODC term. If there is to be a definition (and changes 
in the future), then now and in the future it should only point to the 
CF definition.
If NODC wants their guidance listed, then have them work to add it to 
the CF definition.

>
> 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/20140922/163e316b/attachment-0001.html>