<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi, Bob,<br>
<br>
since not every published dataset is part of the DOI (on the level
of experiment), I have to keep track of versions as well, on the
dataset and on the experiment (DOI) level. The inhomogeneity of the
dataset version syntax is more a problem of version control within
the QC than one of the QC L2 checker, the QC L2 analyzer, or the QC
L2 result export for QC L3.<br>
<br>
I do not care if the homogeneous version syntax is yours or that of
BADC and DKRZ, though the latter would save me adaptation effort,
but *that* it is homogeneous. Maybe you could talk to Stephen to
find an agreement on the version syntax / version handling.<br>
<br>
I am sorry that I have to insist.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
Martina<br>
<br>
<br>
On 04/15/2011 11:18 PM, Drach, Bob wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C9CE041F.1FD85%25drach1@llnl.gov" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title>Re: Versioning in CMIP5 including QC procedure</title>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">Hi Martina,<br>
<br>
There are a lot of things I like about the layout tool, but
one aspect I’m not happy with is that it chooses a dataset
version. IMO that logic should reside in the publisher, which
has access to the history of dataset publication and dataset
definitions. In our environment the layout is done on a
different machine than publication, and does not have access
to that history. Consequently we support the DRS file layout
with the exception of dataset version numbers, which are
defined later in the processing stream.<br>
<br>
Would it be difficult to provide an option for the QC tool to
ignore extraneous directories (not defined by DRS)?<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Bob<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/15/11 4:52 AM, "Martina Stockhause" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="martina.stockhause@zmaw.de">martina.stockhause@zmaw.de</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</span></font>
<blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span></font><span
style="font-size: 11pt;"><font color="#484848"><font
face="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <br>
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: </font></font><font face="Verdana,
Helvetica, Arial"><font color="#2a5685"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://redmine.dkrz.de/collaboration/issues/321">http://redmine.dkrz.de/collaboration/issues/321</a></font><font
color="#484848">). Jeff wrote: "<br>
<br>
<br>
Bob Drach corrected me on one issue: our PCMDI version
numbers are <i>not</i> 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.<br>
<br>
<br>
"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Is that right? I thought that we agreed on a versioning
procedure using Stephen's tool.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thus the question:<br>
Could PCMDI use Stephen's tool for CMIP5 data versioning
as well?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
Martina<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
</font></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>