Hello
Comparing 'Field Detail' in the Javadoc for the AttributeNames class
with ACDD 1-3, in many cases, the Javadoc merely repeats the same
description as used for its 'Field Summary'. In the ACDD, the field
description is more fully described. See field 'COMMENT' for example:
ACDD under Recommended - "Miscellaneous information about the data, not
captured elsewhere. This attribute is defined in the CF Conventions
(http://cfconventions.org)."
Javadoc - "The "comment" attribute name for miscellaneous information
about the data (Recommended)."
I feel that semantically the two are similar in a general sense only,
but not identical in a fuller sense of the meaning. If not identical
semantically, it means that the ACDD document will always have to be
referred to in order to give a fuller definition and guidance. So then
the Javadoc is not properly the full story.
I feel it is a pity to not include what could be very useful detail in
the 'Field Detail' of the Javadoc. The Apache SIS is software used for
scientific purposes and terms need tight definitions that improve
people's understanding, and Javadoc is to where we all refer when trying
to be clear about our facts. It also reduces arguments and
misunderstanding about the detail - so important when multinational
projects are involved.
What is the development team's policy on this matter?
Kind regards
Rob Wallace
