Dear Daniel
Thanks. This is much better. "Search by absolute path" should start with "A"
not "An". In "Search by relative path" I would say "(i.e. containing a slash
but not with a leading slash e.g. `child/lat`)".
I think "Search by proximity" can be stated more concisely and perhaps more
Dear Daniel and Charlie
Thanks to you for the changes, and to Dave for reminding me where to find the
"rich diff". I had forgotten which icon it is. Here are some comments on the
latest version.
* Thanks for the extra definitions in chapter 1. I feel that "element" should
not be included here
Sorry about the long silence everyone, I've been traveling for the past several
weeks and simply hadn't seen the notifications.
As Charlie noted, he's made several changes to address the changes we've been
discussing and I've incorporated them into the Pull Request. You can see the
full set of
As an FYI, if you want to compare two branches or forks, you can view a pull
request without actually creating it for others to see and comment on. So in
this case, we can compare @czender's ["groups"
branch](https://github.com/czender/cf-conventions/tree/groups) against the
current
Jonathan,
Regarding your question about the lateral search algorithm, a succinct way of
remembering it is "search upwards to the apex, from there search across going
downwards". Your suggestion about using any variable with the right name if it
can't be found works well for simple trees. I
Jonathan,
My CF-Groups "tree", i.e., my fork of CF with the Groups modifications in them,
is viewable at https://github.com/czender/cf-conventions/tree/groups
The PR against Daniel's Groups tree, which will show the diff's to the current
Groups proposal (the one discussed above) is at
All, the changes described below were just submitted as a PR to Daniel's tree,
which hopefully means they will modify #145 once accepted. I'm non-expert at
Github, so perhaps that is inefficient. The original is viewable in my tree at
https://github.com/czender/cf-conventions/tree/groups
> I'm
FYI I'm finally making progress on this and expect to have a full response and
update PR next week. Thank you for your patience.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
It appears that these github hub messages are going to the cf-convention mail
list rather than the cf-metadata mail list, so perhaps @czender is not on the
cf-convetion mailing list?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
Dear Charlie
All the GitHub postings are distributed to everyone on the CF email list, so
that it shouldn't be necessary to make individual arrangements for particular
issues.
Best wishes
Jonathan
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email
All,
I missed the original posting of this 19 days ago and the PR itself (one it
left my tree) 15 days ago because my GitHub tag (as opposed to my name) was not
used in this issue/thread until last week, when I was on vacation. Long way of
saying I'm still digesting what's been discussed and
Dear Daniel
Thanks for your responses and comments. Answers to a few questions:
* Yes, I think it would be fine to include Charlie's material on flattening and
dismembering, except for the final paragraph about implementations, which isn't
essential to the convention.
* Including a proper
Given that, would that call for search by proximity as the only approach in
section 5, Scope? Having all potential approaches complicates interpretation of
the data and building services on top of them. Stating absolute or relative
relations explicitly would be beneficial although I see the
In response to Jonathan's question on paths (or full names)
> Is the convention of paths to name groups and elements something that you are
> defining here as part of CF, rather than built into netCDF?
I just wanted to mention that full names are supported (to varying degrees) by
the netCDF C
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks for reviewing this.
# Inline responses
I'm responding to your comments inline and abridging as I determine relevant;
if there's anything you're missing, let me know.
> ... I'm not convinced about the lateral search. You don't sound convinced
> about it either, in saying
Dear Daniel and Charlie
Thanks for this proposal. I think it's a sensible way to support groups, and I
agree with it, except that I'm not convinced about the lateral search. You
don't sound convinced about it either, in saying that it's allowed for
backward-compatibility and may be deprecated
This issue is implemented in
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/145
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/144#issuecomment-410845452
# Further resources:
- [The original
proposal](https://github.com/diwg/cf2/blob/master/group/cf2-group.adoc) which
was used to hash out ideas around these proposed changes
- [The
As discussed in CF meeting on 20 June 2018 in Reading, UK, we'd like to add
support for the use of groups in CF files. Charlie and I have drafted an
appropriate pull request containing the suggestions we'd like to implement.
Basically, the idea is to allow elements in CF files to refer to
19 matches
Mail list logo
