Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

ers, Stephen. --- Stephen Pascoe +44 (0)1235 445980 Centre of Environmental Data Archival STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK From: Russ Rew [mailto:r...@unidata.ucar.edu] Sent: 12 September 2014 04:55 To: John Caron Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re:

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

I'd also like to participate in a working group developing updated CF conventions that take advantage of the netCDF-4 enhanced data model. On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:34 PM, John Caron wrote: > Hi Karl and all: > > NetCDF-4 compression and chunking are transparent to the user, and are > compatib

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

On 9/11/14, 10:20 AM, "John Caron" wrote: >From my POV, groups are a way to, um, group things (variables, coord >systems, etc) together. They should be used for the same reason we use >directories in a file system, to prevent a big mess of things in one >namespace. +1 >The main restriction from

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

Hi John, Johnathan, Jim, et al., I would like to contribute to discussing a CF that would incorporate enhanced data model features. We have collected experience from last year's attempt to jump-start such discussions. Best, Charlie -- Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci. University

[CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

Dear Jim > I think the point of CF 2.x would be to openly embrace new netCDF > features, and if strong backward compatibility would make it > awkward, then backward compatibility would lose. CF 1.x could > continue to evolve along side it. CF 2.x would be a refactoring that > took new features and

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:34:23 -0600 From: John Caron To: Corey Bettenhausen CC: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model Hi Karl and all: NetCDF-4 compression and chunking are transparent to the user, and are compatible wi

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

sen > CC: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model > > Hi Karl and all: > > NetCDF-4 compression and chunking are transparent to the user, and are > compatible with the "classic data model". > >

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

Hi Timothy: >From my POV, groups are a way to, um, group things (variables, coord systems, etc) together. They should be used for the same reason we use directories in a file system, to prevent a big mess of things in one namespace. On the surface, your layout above seems reasonable for those reas

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

I spent an instructive evening reading through the previous discussions (thanks for the links, Corey) and the arguments for and against using hierarchal structures. I also re-read the CF conventions documents again (1.6 and 1.7 draft) and it seems the standard currently ignores groups rather th

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

John, If I can get my management to allow me time for that, I'd love to be involved. Jim On 9/10/14, 2:34 PM, John Caron wrote: Hi Karl and all: NetCDF-4 compression and chunking are transparent to the user, and are compatible with the "classic data model". I think we should be gathering

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

Hi Karl and all: NetCDF-4 compression and chunking are transparent to the user, and are compatible with the "classic data model". I think we should be gathering experiences with the enhanced data model, and start a CF-2.X convention draft document that uses the enhanced model. It would also be a

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

Tim, There was a discussion of this last year. See the archives: http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2013/author.html Particularly, the thread "Towards recognizing and exploiting hierarchical groups": http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2013/056827.html Cheers, -Core

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

Russ and all, One aspect of netCDF-4 we almost certainly expect to make use of for CMIP6 is the "automated" compression option. As far as I know, this does not affect the conventions. If you see a problem with this, please let me know right away. Karl lem any On 9/10/14, 9:16 AM, Russ Rew

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

Jim, I'm hoping more data providers follow your approach, as it will gradually bring along software developers, other data providers, and ultimately conventions authors. I gave a talk at AGU a few years back about how to manage

Re: [CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

Tim, You can use netCDF-4 without "classic" format, but for true, full CF compliance you can't use any new features. Personal opinion alert!!! The following is just my personal opinion. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I'm just sharing my observations on my experiences. Please don't hate m

[CF-metadata] CF Conventions and netCDF-4 enhanced model

Is it correct to say that, although they don't explicitly state it, the CF conventions (1.6 and the draft 1.7) restrict compliant netCDF products to be either netCDF-3 or netCDF-4 in classic format? There are no conventions for the enhanced features such as groups and user-defined types like enu