<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19120"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=204573710-02092011>Hello Karl,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
class=204573710-02092011> </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
class=204573710-02092011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial>> </FONT></SPAN>For CMIP5 the DRS document recommends
(but does *not* require) a final directory structure. Because this is
only a recommendation, <SPAN class=204573710-02092011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
class=204573710-02092011><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>>
</FONT></SPAN>individual data nodes may choose to organize their data to fit
their own local requirements.<BR></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff size=2
face=Arial><SPAN class=204573710-02092011> </SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=204573710-02092011> </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=204573710-02092011>Can you give examples of the local
requirements? I'm still not clear (apart from the inertia of
changing what is already there on data nodes) why the DRS directory structure is
only recommended, not required. </SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN class=204573710-02092011>Or is the inertia
the dominant term? (I *think* this is what Estani has concluded - at least
thats my interpretation of what he's saying).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=204573710-02092011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial><SPAN
class=204573710-02092011>Jamie</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>