[Go-essp-tech] DRS structure

[stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk]

Hi Estani,

Yes, the DRS document is out of date with regard to the position of the version component in URL and filesystem paths.  

I hadn't noticed that the CMIP5 best practice document was suggesting adding "ensemble" to the dataset_id.  That would imply publishing each ensemble member as a separate  dataset which I don't think we are doing.  As far as I know "ensemble" is still, and has always been, below "variable" in the hierarchy.   

Bob, can you clarify?

-----Original Message-----
From: Estanislao Gonzalez [mailto:estanislao.gonzalez at zmaw.de]
Sent: Mon 8/23/2010 3:24 PM
To: Bob Drach; Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
Cc: go-essp-tech at ucar.edu
Subject: DRS structure
 
Hi all,

I've realized we've been moving things from one place to another 
regarding the DRS components, and the DRS Reference Syntax document 
(from 7/4/2010) does not reflect this changes.

There are two major difference here:
1) versioning: the drslib tool is creating a structure which is, for the 
time being, not drs conform. I totally agree with the new 
version-component placement, but should that not be reflected in the DRS 
syntax document?
2) in CMIP5 Best Practices for Data Publication stays that the 
dataset_id should be: 
cmip5.<product>.<institute>.<model>.<experiment>.<time_frequency>.<realm>.<ensemble>
I know the dataset_id is not required to necessary match any drs 
structure. But I personally think we should avoid drs-similar 
identifiers, as IMHO it increases confusion.
I think this solution helps solving some publishing problems, but 
defines a new dataset level, the "ensemble dataset". And the 
realm-dataset is not being used anywhere else (or am I missing something?)

I'm not aware of the reasons behind the definition of the DRS structure 
as it currently is. But I think, we should avoid drifting away from that 
document. In any case the document should be updated first.

If I try to join all changes and proposals I've heard of, AFAIC the DRS 
structure we are going to appears to look something like:
cmip5.<product>.<institute>.<model>.<experiment>.<time_frequency>.<realm>.<ensemble>.<version>.<variable>

Which is different from the original:
cmip5.<product>.<institute>.<model>.<experiment>.<time_frequency>.<realm>.<variable>.<ensemble>.<version>

Can anyone with more knowledge on the subject comment on this?

Thanks,
Estani

-- 
Estanislao Gonzalez

Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie (MPI-M)
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum (DKRZ) - German Climate Computing Centre
Room 108 - Bundesstrasse 45a, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany

Phone:   +49 (40) 46 00 94-126
E-Mail:  estanislao.gonzalez at zmaw.de


-- 
Scanned by iCritical.