[Go-essp-tech] Versioning in CMIP5 including QC procedure
Martina Stockhause
martina.stockhause at zmaw.de
Sun Apr 17 23:57:33 MDT 2011
Hi, Bob,
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.
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.
I am sorry that I have to insist.
Best wishes,
Martina
On 04/15/2011 11:18 PM, Drach, Bob wrote:
> Hi Martina,
>
> 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.
>
> Would it be difficult to provide an option for the QC tool to ignore
> extraneous directories (not defined by DRS)?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob
>
>
> On 4/15/11 4:52 AM, "Martina Stockhause" <martina.stockhause at zmaw.de>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, Dean, Karl, and Bob,
>
> there was a discussion started about different types of
> versioning inside ESGF for CMIP5 data on the QC request tracker
> (see: http://redmine.dkrz.de/collaboration/issues/321). Jeff wrote: "
>
>
> Bob Drach corrected me on one issue: our PCMDI version numbers are
> /not/ 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.
>
>
> "
>
>
>
> Is that right? I thought that we agreed on a versioning procedure
> using Stephen's tool.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Thus the question:
> Could PCMDI use Stephen's tool for CMIP5 data versioning as well?
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
> Martina
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/go-essp-tech/attachments/20110418/1a67c3c6/attachment.html
More information about the GO-ESSP-TECH
mailing list