strument Data Simulation
> Product Format Specification
>
> EUMETSAT
> Eumetsat-Allee 1
> 64295 Darmstadt
> Germany
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of
> Charlie Zender
> Sent: Friday, S
n [mailto:timothy.patter...@eumetsat.int]
Sent: 24 September 2014 09:16
To: 'Charlie Zender'; CF Metadata Mail List
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CF-2.0 Convention discussion
I'm wondering whether CF Convention 2.0 is the right naming convention to be
using to refer to this new bra
ail List
Subject: [CF-metadata] CF-2.0 Convention discussion
I like the idea of a Google Doc to consolidate the issue list.
Whether it will prove unwieldy is hard to guess.
A 3-month period for listing use-cases seems reasonable.
It seems more CF-like to be use-case driven than to presume the enti
In an earlier, and different, thread Rich Signell mentioned the Semantic
Versioning concept of x.y.z notation, meaning MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH. See
http://semver.org/ and in particular items 6-8. I agree with Rich in that
semantic versioning is a good approach and something CF should consider
explicitl
Dear Jonathan,
removal/backward incompatibility is a difficult issue, and having
several ways to do things just because of backward compatibility will
make CF hard to understand. It is not only new features in CF which
introduces too many ways to do things, also the existing document has
plen
List
Subject: [CF-metadata] CF-2.0 Convention discussion
I like the idea of a Google Doc to consolidate the issue list.
Whether it will prove unwieldy is hard to guess.
A 3-month period for listing use-cases seems reasonable.
It seems more CF-like to be use-case driven than to presume the entire
I like the idea of a Google Doc to consolidate the issue list.
Whether it will prove unwieldy is hard to guess.
A 3-month period for listing use-cases seems reasonable.
It seems more CF-like to be use-case driven than to
presume the entire netCDF4 data model will be adopted.
This has the advantag
Dear John
> So I propose we have a 3 month discussion period where we clarify what the
> issues are and possible improvements or changes. We wont try too hard
> during that period to create final wording, and divergences of opinion will
> be recorded rather than resolved. After that we will have a
