[Esip-documentation] ACDD status

[John Graybeal via Esip-documentation]

Hi Philip,

Sorry this is a bit delayed, I'd like to understand what you have in mind. Is the product version identifying the product instance, or the algorithm/methodology applied to the product?

If product_version is identifying the algorithm/methodology instance, perhaps the definition can be "The version identifier of the algorithm or methodology applied to produce the data."

What would you expect in these two attributes if the data set has been processed through a pipeline of 3 applications, each implementing its own algorithm?

Given Nan's documentation of the existing definition/use of the history attribute, can you describe how software_version adds value to that?

John



On Nov 25, 2014, at 14:42, Philip Jones - NOAA Affiliate via Esip-documentation <esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I have a third agenda topic to add for the December 4th meeting. I'd like to discuss the possibility of adding two new global attributes for the product and product generation software versions.
> 
> Name: product_version
> Description: The version identifier of the product based on the algorithm or methodology applied.
> 
> Name: software_version
> Description: The version identifier of the software that generated the data. 
> 
> Please send your comments on the proposed attributes before next week's ACDD meeting.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Phil
> 
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, John Graybeal via Esip-documentation <esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
> hi everyone,
> 
> With the latest ESIP Documentation meeting, I've updated the specification per the two changes we agreed upon, and I think the ACDD 1.3 document is again down to at most 2 'minor' open issues. 
> 
> We have scheduled an ACDD meeting for 2 weeks from today, Dec 4, to discuss these topics as needed; my hope is that they are resolved via this list before then.
> 
> (1) Is the existing text describing the publisher (person or other entity "responsible for publishing the data file or product to users, with its current metadata and format") appropriate?
> 
> (2) Is the standard_name_vocabulary attribute necessary and appropriate, given CF specifies the purpose of the standard_name attribute.
> 
> I will follow up on each of these separately via email.
> 
> By the way, if you are looking for all the historical Wiki Discussion page notes, they are at the 'Working' document's Talk page:   
>    http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Talk:Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_1-2_Working 
> 
> I'm sorry that we missed talking through today's issues last week, as originally planned; but today's CF standard_name discussion was important and otherwise might not have happened. So it's all good.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-documentation mailing list
> Esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Philip R. Jones
> Team ERT/STG
> Government Contractor
> National Climatic Data Center, NOAA NESDIS
> Veach-Baley Federal Building
> 151 Patton Ave.
> Asheville, NC 28801-5001 USA
> Voice: +1 828-271-4472  FAX: +1 828-271-4328
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-documentation mailing list
> Esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-documentation/attachments/20141206/1dbade3a/attachment.html>