[Go-essp-tech] Updating the DRS document *with attachments*

[martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk]

Hello Karl,

I've just noticed that when I view the pdf version of the DRS, the title "I may have missed many things, coming to the discussion late, but here is a first try" is displayed across the top of the window. This is the document metadata title, under the file -> properties menu. 

cheers,
Martin
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Taylor [mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov]
Sent: Wed 13/01/2010 00:11
To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
Cc: Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD); go-essp-tech at ucar.edu
Subject: Updating the DRS document *with attachments*
 
Karl Taylor wrote:
> Dear Martin and Stephen,
>
> thanks very much for thinking about this a providing some specific 
> suggestions. This has prompted me to get back to this. I thought I had 
> already placed on the web version 22 of the document (attached), which 
> defined a "Product" component for DRS. After reading your input, I 
> have altered this slightly, and also completed the definition of the 
> experiment names (see the last appendix) in version 23 (also attached).
>
> Please let me know if this meets all the requirements.
>
> Best regards,
>
> martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> Hello Karl,
>>
>> I think the following changes are what is needed - I'm happy to put 
>> them into the document and circulate the result for approval if you 
>> send me the latest version in word. I don't think this affects what 
>> modelling groups are doing, since, if they archive in the DRS, 
>> everything they archive will be in the 'full' section of the 
>> directory tree and it will be up to the data node managers to create 
>> the 'requested' section.
>>
>> In section 2.1: Modify the atomic dataset definition:
>>
>> /The collection of data that is output from a single model run and /
>>
>> /characterized by sharing a single activity, _activity component_, 
>> institute, model, /
>>
>> /experiment/scenario, data frequency, modeling-realm, variable name, /
>>
>> /local ensemble member, and version. /
>>
>> I'm not sure about the terminology "activity component", but it is 
>> reasonably descriptive.
>>
>> In the following paragraph, change `first six' to `first seven' and 
>> add 'activity component' to the list.
>>
>> In section 2.2: Insert an `activity component' definition after the 
>> 'activity' definition:
>>
>> *Activity component *
>>
>> The DRS will distinguish between 'full' and 'requested' atomic 
>> datasets. The 'full' component
>>
>> will contain all the data archived, while the 'requested' component 
>> will contain only
>>
>> those sections of the data in the PCMDI CMIP5 data request. The 
>> atomic datasets within
>>
>> the 'requested' component will thus either be subsets of those 'full' 
>> component or identical
>>
>> to them when only the requested data is archived.
>>
>> In section 3.1: insert `/<category>' after '/<activity>/', and 
>> similar changes to
>>
>> other URLs in this section.
>>
>> In section 3.2: as above.
>>
>> Add a new section 3.4:
>>
>> 3.4 Replication
>>
>> A subset of the data will be replicated at PCMDI, BADC and DKRZ. This 
>> subset will consist of a selection of complete atomic datasets from 
>> the "requested" activity component.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>>
>> > From: Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
>>
>> > Sent: 07 January 2010 12:05
>>
>> > To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Karl Taylor
>>
>> > Cc: go-essp-tech at ucar.edu
>>
>> > Subject: Updating the DRS document
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Hi Martin and Karl,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I am keen that the recent discussions on DRS aren't forgotten in the
>>
>> > rush to implement. Therefore I would like to see the DRS document
>>
>> > updated with the following:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 1. Product/Category Component.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > As agreed in the versioning telco
>>
>> > 
>> (http://*proj.badc.rl.ac.uk/go-essp/wiki/CMIP5/Meetings/telco091208) we
>>
>> > need an extra component in the DRS to distinguish between requested
>>
>> > and unrequested atomic datasets. I think the proposal was for a
>>
>> > category between Activity and Institute with a the value "full" or
>>
>> > "requested". I like the term "Product" for this component but I think
>>
>> > various names were discussed.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 2. Hostname Component in URLs.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I believe this needs to be replaced by a host prefix, thus allowing
>>
>> > some site-specific path elements to preceed the activity component.
>>
>> > Knowing how the datanode software is designed I think it is too
>>
>> > restrictive to insist the first element after the hostname is Activity
>>
>> > because in reality multiple services will be running on a datanode.
>>
>> > One could keep the current scheme with virtual hosts and redirects but
>>
>> > it seems unnecessary.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > 3. Section 3.3 Filenames.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > There is no version number in the filename convention: Shouldn't there
>>
>> > be? A recent comment from Sylvia suggested the ESG metadata display
>>
>> > will depend on this naming scheme so I would like to see more detail
>>
>> > here. Is the temporal_subset element manditory for all files in the
>>
>> > system?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I am happy to help with preparing a new draft if you wish.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Thanks,
>>
>> > Stephen.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Scanned by iCritical.
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Scanned by iCritical.