On 20/07/17 14:45, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Martin
I don't think it's practicable for the CF community to undertake to verify
applications as CF-compliant, just as we can't do it with datasets. There are
many datasets in existence which claim to be CF-compliant but are not.
I'm agree with this. A reference implementation could be provided, but
just as reference.
However
for the specific aim of compliance checking, perhaps it would be possible for
us to maintain a netCDF file containing an example of every possible
violation of a requirement or recommendation in the CF conformance document,
and maybe an example of everything which is described as legal e.g. all the
actual examples in the conventions document, and some more. Accompanying this
would be a list of the errors and warnings that ought to be found. Thus it
would be a resource for checking the CF-compliance of CF-compliance checkers!
These seems achievable in principle to me, but I'm not sure whether we have
the effort to do it, or whether it would be useful. What do you think?
The most useful, from a point of view of a CF-compliance checker
developer, would be the "wrong" examples and know why. This "wrong"
examples could be useful also to users.
All those examples could be used as an test and quality of control for
CF-checkers.
Regards
Antonio
--
Antonio S. Cofiño
Associate Professor and Researcher
Grupo de Meteorología de Santander
Dep. of Applied Mathematics and Computer Sciences
Universidad de Cantabria (Spain)
Academic Visitor
National Centre for Atmospheric Science
Department of Meteorology
School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences
University of Reading (UK)
http://antonio.cofino.es
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from [email protected] -----
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:37:22 +0000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [CF-metadata] Another CF complaince checker -- from IOOS --- with
some issues
Hello All,
Following discussions with a colleague (As Stephens) I've taken a look at the
IOOS compliance-checker, which contains a module for checking how files comply
with the CF convention. I looked at 4 files with known CF errors, and found an
average of two erroneous reports per file (listed in an issue which I raised on
their github site: https://github.com/ioos/compliance-checker/issues/501 ).
There are also ambiguities arising from the fact that they use priority 1 (low)
to 3 (high) rather than INFO, WARN, ERROR -- but I haven't gone into all of
these in the issue raised.
I'm raising it here as well because I'd like to hear other views on the broader
question of community tools associated with CF. It is good that people are
getting engaged and working through the details of the convention, not so good
if they produce and spread misleading information. In its current state, I
don't think the IOOS compliance checker is one we would want to approve, but if
they fix the 8 problems identified from a morning looking through the results
from tests on 4 files, does that make it OK? or, since the 8 problems I've
raised come from looking at a small set of files, should we assume that there
are many other problems and ask them to do more?
regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
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
