This message came from the CF Trac system. Do not reply. Instead, enter your comments in the CF Trac system at https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/.
#95: Development of CF 1.5 Data Model -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: markh | Owner: [email protected] Type: task | Status: new Priority: medium | Milestone: Component: cf-conventions | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Comment (by mgschultz): Dear Stephen and David, point taken and accepted! However, I think that when writing this up we should include some "implementation remark" here to explain that there is an issue here, which however needs to be dealt with on the implementation level. At some point I am only beginning to worry that the gap between the data model and any specific implementation will be so wide that the data model as such may become useless. In fact, I would tend to disagree with David's statement "So long as the logical content of the input and output datasets is the same then the data model has done its job, regardless, in fact, of the formats of the two datasets." -- as soon as you deal with a dataset format, you are bound to certain implementation details, and it may therefore not be possible to exactly preserve the "logical content" of input and output. So, I think it is an illusion to create a fully abstract data model, and the value of the data model would be greater if it at least points to "preferred" ways of implementing it. Best regards, Martin -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/95#comment:71> CF Metadata <http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/> CF Metadata This message came from the CF Trac system. To unsubscribe, without unsubscribing to the regular cf-metadata list, send a message to "[email protected]" with "unsubscribe cf-metadata" in the body of your message.
