Tim, There was a discussion of this last year. See the archives: http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2013/author.html
Particularly, the thread "Towards recognizing and exploiting hierarchical groups": http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2013/056827.html Cheers, -Corey On Sep 10, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Timothy Patterson wrote: > Is it correct to say that, although they don't explicitly state it, the CF > conventions (1.6 and the draft 1.7) restrict compliant netCDF products to be > either netCDF-3 or netCDF-4 in classic format? There are no conventions for > the enhanced features such as groups and user-defined types like enumerated > variables, and Section 2.2, as an example, bars the use of unsigned integer > variables or string variables (which are even stated not to exist, again > implying classic-model only). > > There are some features of the enhanced model we want to use for our future > datasets (such as groups) and some features which would make life easier but > could be worked around if it led to CF compliance (enumerated types, unsigned > integers, string types, etc.). Are there any plans to introduce conventions > for the use of these enhanced features at some point in the future or would > non-classic model datasets always be seen as non-compliant? > > Thanks for your insights on this issue! > > Regards, > > Tim Patterson > > > > --------------------- > > Dr. Timothy Patterson > Instrument Data Simulation > Product Format Specification > > EUMETSAT, Eumetsatallee 1, D-64295 Darmstadt, Germany > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata -- Corey Bettenhausen Science Systems and Applications, Inc NASA Goddard Space Flight Center 301 614 5383 [email protected] _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
