Hello Nan, Le 19/09/2013 12:16, Nan Galbraith a écrit : > Hi all - >> Did I misunderstand the original proposal? > > Could we possibly have a proposal written up as a ticket on the Trac > system?
I'd prefer not to submit anything to the Trac system until/unless there is consensus from many doubters that there is a compelling use-case for "group-aware" CF. > I'm finding it difficult to find a description of what's being > suggested, in > the many emails in this thread. Understandable. It's rather amorphous because there are features (e.g. "ensemble"), structure (groups), and properties (group metadata inheritance) involved. Although the three could be segregated, I need to have a better sense of CFś receptiveness to each of the three. That way no one is tasked with writing a convention extension that immediately becomes obsolete. > I realize we're very far from a detailed description of how groups might > be implemented, but a sketch of what would satisfy the people who made > this proposal would be *really* useful. The above is all I can say now. I think the ongoing discussion of a compelling use-case will reveal a lot about the possibility of any changes to CF. Best, cz > Thanks - > Nan -- 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
