It's an indication of interest beyond the 'local community', as for
example when there is a book explaining a programming language.
Unfortunately, our community's size mostly hasn't risen to 'book
level' yet. So any new person who's interested just gets sucked into
the primary community.
That said, there are a number of external references. For a minor
example, a search for "Climate Forecast" at MMI finds quite a number
of references, though no detailed discussions.
I'm wondering what the searchers looked for -- that could be the
problem. A search for
"climate and forecast" conventions
in Google revealed a lot of references, for example here's a (brief)
citation in a book:
http://tinyurl.com/5uy4s9
But I'm not sure 'citations' are the metric wikipedia wants to use.
Unfortunately, *using* a standard is different than *caring* about
it. Safe to say the population that cares about the USB standards is
significantly smaller than the population that uses them. Both both
are much larger for USB than for CF!
John
On Oct 23, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Jon Blower wrote:
Hi Russ,
I don't understand why there is a desire for others to document CF.
Surely it's better to have a single authoritative source? Do they
mean that they want evidence that others are writing about CF, in the
sense that they are using it? One could argue that this entire list
is involved in documenting CF, not just the primary authors.
On the deletion page, this statement is patently false:
A web search reveals that few people care about this subject
besides the ones developing it.
Lots of people care about CF, even if they don't know it, because
their tools would not interpret data correctly. It can be
demonstrated that CF is in wide use (see Steve Hankin's GODAE poster
for instance).
Cheers, Jon
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Russ Rew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi,
There is currently a Wikipedia discussion taking place on whether a
CF
Metadata Conventions article is appropriate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CF_Metadata_Conventions
One of the characteristics that Wikipedia strives for in all
articles is
verifiable accuracy, which has led to the comment:
The proper question to be addressing here is whether there is
documentation of these conventions by someone other than their
original authors.
Does anyone know of such documentation? It would provide evidence
of an
independent source for information about the CF conventions, and
ultimately the verifiability of information in the draft article
being
built at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF_Metadata_Conventions
--Russ
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Dr Jon Blower
Technical Director, Reading e-Science Centre
Environmental Systems Science Centre
University of Reading
Harry Pitt Building, 3 Earley Gate
Reading RG6 6AL. UK
Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5213
Fax: +44 (0)118 378 6413
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/People/Staff/Blower_J.htm
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
John
--------------
John Graybeal <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
