I'd also like to participate in a working group developing updated CF conventions that take advantage of the netCDF-4 enhanced data model.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:34 PM, John Caron <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Karl and all: > > NetCDF-4 compression and chunking are transparent to the user, and are > compatible with the "classic data model". > > I think we should be gathering experiences with the enhanced data model, > and start a CF-2.X convention draft document that uses the enhanced model. > It would also be a good time to remove deprecated features and in general > not require backwards compatibility. Perhaps if there are 5-6 people we > could start a working group to discuss. > > John > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Corey Bettenhausen < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
