Hi Steve,
I am happy you found our work useful. You raised very good discussion
points !
Presently, we are working to include CF ver.1.5 in the diagram and,
hence, in the clauses. Indeed, any comment and/or contribution is very
welcome.
Thanks,
Stefano
On 4/2/2011 2:03 AM, Stefano Nativi wrote:
Hi Upendra,
My plane was delayed ...
Please, find attached the draft CF-netCDF data model specification
that Ben and I are developing for the OGC.
In this version of the specification, the CF conventions are still
version 1.1. However, I have been working to update them to 1.5 --as
was decided at the last OGC netCDF SWG meeting in Bonn.
Hi Stefano,
Thanks for sharing this. And thanks for the important work that you
and Ben and others are doing bringing the worlds of netCDF and OGC
together. It's a terrific contribution.
Your draft has a number of elements that may benefit from debate on
this email list -- starting with the desired relationship between "CF
for OGC" and "pure CF" (for lack of better terms). Concepts like
RadialAzimuth/Elevation/Distance have not yet not, to my knowledge,
been defined in "pure CF", for example. And the converse, that some
of the concepts, like the leap_month designation (I had to look it up)
are so old and rarely used (??), that maybe this should be an
opportunity to discuss whether they ought to be deprecated.
Curvilinear coordinates appear to be incompletely represented in your
diagram at this point.
Enjoy your week in Vienna!
- Steve
I hope that helps.
Stefano
Hi Upendra,
As part of the effort to establish CF as an OGC standard, Stefano
Nativi has created a UML diagram and carefully crafted systematic
description of the CF extension to the netCDF classic data model.
I'll send Stefano a copy of this message so he can send you the
latest version of the appropriate information. I have copies that I
can send, but I fear they may be out of date.
Please note that Stefano is very busy at this time as the chair of
the ESSI division of the EGU which is meeting next week, so he may
not be able to respond immediately.
-- Ben
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Upendra Dadi <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am trying to better understand CF model and its relationship
with netCDF-classic data model. Is there even a relationship? If I
am creating a netCDF file using CF conventions, does the file have
to be using classic data model? If I am using netCDF4 with strings
and no other feature of netCDF4, could it still be CF compliant.
Is it right to say that one of the basic elements of CF standard
is regular arrays as opposed to variable length arrays? And that
is where the "relationship" between CF model and netCDF-classic
data model ends? Does CF "recognize" variable length arrays?
I guess these issues are important in the context of proposed
discrete sampling geometry extension to CF.
Upendra
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
