> The simplest support imaginable is that groups should be completely > self-contained without attribute inheritance. This would go in the right > direction,
My value proposition is rather the opposite. In preparing well-documented netCDF files, I need some kind of inherited attributes, because that is the only explicit way for the data model within the file to reflect the data model within the real world. (And it's the only explicit way for the UI to present to a user that real-world model.) Using containers to group together a bunch of files is a fine concept, but I feel no need to manipulate standards of an individual file type to let me mimic that -- I can just put together a bunch of files in a directory. (Done!) I'm even less likely to put all these things together into a group, and then say "but the characteristics defined for the group don't apply to the things in it." That makes for an extremely low-cohesion group, and usually a lot of redundant (therefore difficult to manage and process) metadata. The discussion of flat vs hierarchical advantages in this context is thus lost on me (and I have tons of directories AND smart folders AND use spotlight constantly, and deal with XML and relational DBs all the time). I want proper, unambiguous modeling of the data relationships using CF. As I understand it, your starting concern is to be able to put things into folder-equivalents, pure and simple. I wonder if trying to satisfy both needs with one modification will produce the cleanest outcome? John On Sep 17, 2013, at 13:51, Charlie Zender <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > I also advocate keeping support for groups simple. > The simplest support imaginable is that groups should be completely > self-contained without attribute inheritance. This would go in the > right direction, yet I think attribute inheritance, at least of global > metadata, ought to be strongly considered. Otherwise useful attributes > like "history" and "Convention" have to be stored in each group.... > > cz > > > Le 17/09/2013 04:56, [email protected] a écrit : >> Bryan has beaten me to the points I would have made. I think hierarchies are >> over rated at the interface level. Examples abound of where they have been >> abandoned: hierarchal vs relational DBs, XML databases and tools (save us >> from xquery for Netcdf!). >> >> Under the hood hierarchies are often necessary for scalability and we all >> use them as a crutch when no better tools exist. >> >> I would advocate keeping support for groups very simple. CF could treat any >> netcdf file containing groups as if it was a directory of netcdf files with >> attached metadata. IMO complex rules about inter-group relationships should >> be avoided. I guess attribute inheritance must be an exception here but I >> would urge caution. One of the CF data model tickets has got a detailed >> debate on interpretation of the current standard regarding variable >> attributes overriding global attributes. Lessons from that should be learned. >> >> Stephen. >> >> -- >> Stephen Pascoe from iPhone >> > > > -- > Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci. > University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'( > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata ------------------------------------ John Graybeal Senior Data Manager, Metadata and Semantics T +1 (408) 675-5545 F +1 (408) 616-1626 skype: graybealski Marinexplore 920 Stewart Drive Sunnyvale, CA _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
