[Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary

[martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk]

Hello,

I agree with Stephen on this -- I  think it is important to stick to the
vocabularies specified in the DRS. Having a directory to contain all the
input form a given institute makes many things easier, and it also makes
sense for "model" to mean model, rather than institute+model (I think),

Cheers,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: go-essp-tech-bounces at ucar.edu [mailto:go-essp-tech-
> bounces at ucar.edu] On Behalf Of stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk
> Sent: 28 June 2010 09:39
> To: drach1 at llnl.gov
> Cc: go-essp-tech at ucar.edu; doutriaux1 at llnl.gov
> Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> > Since the institute names are fairly short, it might not be so bad
to
> include them in the model name. It
> > has the advantage of making the models unique, which simplifies
> searching.
> > If the duplication is undesirable, my preference would be to not use
> the institute name in the directory
> > structure at all, and thereby reduce the number of levels.
> 
> I'm agnostic on the merit of separating institute and model but since
> it's been in the DRS document for months I feel the decision has been
> made and we should comply with it.  With separate DRS components for
> institute and model it is counter-productive to include the institute
> in
> the model name.  The institute component becomes redundant and
> searching
> for a particular model, wherever it was run, becomes more difficult.
> 
> Cheers,
> Stephen.
> 
> 
> ---
> Stephen Pascoe  +44 (0)1235 445980
> British Atmospheric Data Centre
> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Drach [mailto:drach1 at llnl.gov]
> Sent: 25 June 2010 18:56
> To: Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
> Cc: Bob Drach; Charles Doutriaux; go-essp-tech at ucar.edu; Karl Taylor
> Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> I don't know if Charles is around - I'll add my two cents.
> 
> On Jun 25, 2010, at 8:44 AM, <stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk>
> <stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk  > wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi Bob, Charles
> >
> > Thanks for this, distributing these mappings are really important
for
> > getting the DRS structure right.  I'm trying to reconcile this
> mapping
> 
> > with our DRS-checking code.
> >
> > I have a few questions about the model -> institute mappings:
> >
> > * How does these mappings relate to the directory structure created
> by
> 
> > CMOR.  For instance the model ids in the link are a combination of
> > model and institute from the DRS.  I don't think CMOR will produce
> > directories of the form CMIP5/output/MOHC/MOHC-HADCM3/... it will be
> > CMIP5/output/MOHC/HADCM3/...
> 
> Since the institute names are fairly short, it might not be so bad to
> include them in the model name. It has the advantage of making the
> models unique, which simplifies searching. If the duplication is
> undesirable, my preference would be to not use the institute name in
> the
> directory structure at all, and thereby reduce the number of levels.
> 
> >
> > * Which institutions do the GISS-E and MIROC* models map to?  I have
> > sketched in NASA and NIES but these don't appear in your institute
> > list
> 
> Probably GISS or NASA GISS, CCSR for MIROC. Karl may have an opinion.
> It should ultimately be the modelling group's choice.
> 
> >
> > * Which models map to institute NCC?
> ncc-noresm
> >
> > * CMOR appears to use upper case for model and institute names.  Is
> > there a reason why you have lower case here?
> Only because that's the convention we used for CMIP3. The comparisons
> should be case insensitive IMO.
> 
> >
> > * The institute "CNRM/CERFACS" is clearly inappropriate for use in
> the
> > DRS since it can't translate into a directory name.  Is CNRM
> > sufficient?
> I believe so, with the same caveat as above.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Bob
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen.
> >
> > ---
> > Stephen Pascoe  +44 (0)1235 445980
> > British Atmospheric Data Centre
> > Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: go-essp-tech-bounces at ucar.edu
> > [mailto:go-essp-tech-bounces at ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Drach
> > Sent: 17 June 2010 19:44
> > To: GO-ESSP
> > Subject: [Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary
> >
> > I've posted a summary of the CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary, as
> > represented in the ESG publisher configuration. See:
> >
> > http://*esg-pcmdi.llnl.gov/internal/esg-data-node-documentation/
> > cmip5_con
> > trolled_vocab.txt/view
> >
> > The document is also linked from the CMIP5 website.
> >
> > Some of the model information is not yet complete, particularly the
> > URLs
> > associated with each model. It is also likely that more models will
> be
> > added to the list. Please let me know of any errors or omissions.
> >
> > Bob D.
> > _______________________________________________
> > GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
> > GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
> > http://*mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech
> > --
> > Scanned by iCritical.
> >
> 
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
> _______________________________________________
> GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
> GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.