<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<style>
body {
font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;
font-size: 0.8em;
color:#484848;
}
h1, h2, h3 { font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Verdana, sans-serif; margin: 0px; }
h1 { font-size: 1.2em; }
h2, h3 { font-size: 1.1em; }
a, a:link, a:visited { color: #2A5685;}
a:hover, a:active { color: #c61a1a; }
a.wiki-anchor { display: none; }
hr {
width: 100%;
height: 1px;
background: #ccc;
border: 0;
}
.footer {
font-size: 0.8em;
font-style: italic;
}
</style>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<span class="footer"><br>
</span><span class="footer"></span>Hi, Dean, Karl, and Bob,<br>
<br>
there was a discussion started about different types of versioning
inside ESGF for CMIP5 data on the QC request tracker (see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redmine.dkrz.de/collaboration/issues/321">http://redmine.dkrz.de/collaboration/issues/321</a>). Jeff wrote: "<br>
<p>Bob Drach corrected me on one issue: our PCMDI version numbers
are <em>not</em> DRS version numbers, they are just a tool for
keeping track of the data received at PCMDI. Thus these version
numbers are generated at PCMDI, while DRS version numbers are
generated by the data producer. PCMDI does not use Stephen's
versioning tool, or the DRS-style version numbers.</p>
<p>"<br>
</p>
<p>Is that right? I thought that we agreed on a versioning procedure
using Stephen's tool.<br>
</p>
<p>And I do have a problem with different ESG publication procedures
(QC level 1 checks), i.e. different QC procedures at the three
partners. Additionally, the inconsistent naming conventions
between WDCC / BADC on one side and PCMDI on the other side cannot
be handled by the QC Workflow. Since we do a federated QC in three
locations we need to use not only the same tools with the same
configurations for a comparability of QC results, but we need to
use the same naming conventions to grant a continuation of the
overall QC process with QC L3 / DOI publication.<br>
</p>
<p>Thus the question:<br>
Could PCMDI use Stephen's tool for CMIP5 data versioning as well?<br>
</p>
<p>Best wishes,<br>
Martina<br>
<br>
</p>
<span class="footer"></span><span class="footer"></span>
</body>
</html>