I agree with John ... our work toward standards is unlikely to be
recognized beyond those relying on it. that doesn't mean it's not
important. It does mean it's sometimes difficult to get funding.
Karl
On 3/13/12 8:07 AM, John Graybeal wrote:
On Mar 13, 2012, at 02:08, Robert Muetzelfeldt wrote:
Maybe lots of published data analysis has been undertaken using CF Standard
Names and it's simply that the authors did not feel the need to mention it, but
that seems a bit unlikely.
Why does that seem unlikely? CF is a framework capability, and the users of it
who write papers likely simultaneously used 100 other framework capabilities as
they did their research. CF would not stand out any more than their computer's
operating system or the tool they used to make their plots.
A curse of the infrastructure providers, whose works are long in service but
rarely explicitly appreciated. :->
John
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
_______________________________________________
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
