[Go-essp-tech] Versioning in CMIP5 including QC procedure

[Martina Stockhause]

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