[Esip-documentation] Related data files in NetCDF

[Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-5860)]

Nan,

I think it would be great to standardize a related dataset in netCDF files.  However, I would not advise the GCMD RelatedURL, as that is really intended for listing data directories, service endpoints and supporting documentation for the dataset in whose metadata record it appears. It is not intended for referring to other datasets. So while it could be made to work, it's probably not the best choice. 

I endorse Ted's suggestion of using the DataCite relationships, which I think is closer to what you are trying to do, and has a more appropriate set of relationship types.

I'm really looking forward to seeing dataset relationships made more of a feature in our community standards...
—
Christopher Lynnes   NASA/GSFC    301-614-5185
“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.” A. de St. Exupery


On 6/7/18, 14:09, "Esip-documentation on behalf of Nan Galbraith via Esip-documentation" <esip-documentation-bounces at lists.esipfed.org on behalf of esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

    The OceanSITES data management team would like to formalize a
    method to include pointers to 'related data' files in our  NetCDF files.
    We are serving long-term, open ocean data sets, and for some of these
    there may be deployment/recovery cruise data, short term (single
    deployment) data from 'guest' instruments, or ... some other kinds of
    data that aren't in our collection but are available elsewhere.
    
    The GCMD DIF has a Related_URL concept that would probably
    work for us:
    
    <Related_URL>
          <URL_Content_Type>
             <Type>Related URL Type keyword</Type>
             <Subtype>Related URL Subtype keyword</Subtype>
          </URL_Content_Type>
          <URL>URL up to 600 characters</URL>
          <Description>Text (may be multi-line)</Description>
    </Related_URL>
    
    I'm wondering if there are other standards that might also work, and if
    there are standard ways to express something like this in NetCDF. I
    was just looking at some ways to group attributes, but I haven't found
    anything that's widely accepted.
    
    In the ACDD, we 'references'  is one of the suggested attributes, taken
    from CF; however it doesn't have the descriptive fields that the DIF
    provides.
    
    Any suggestions would be appreciated!
    
    Cheers - Nan
    
    -- 
    *******************************************************
    * Nan Galbraith        Information Systems Specialist *
    * Upper Ocean Processes Group            Mail Stop 29 *
    * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                *
    * Woods Hole, MA 02543                 (508) 289-2444 *
    *******************************************************
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Esip-documentation mailing list
    Esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org
    http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation