[Go-essp-tech] Extending the DRS syntax to observations

[Cinquini, Luca (3880)]

Hi Chris and George,
	thanks for your input... I guess the question is wether you would be opposed to re-arranging the fields according to an order that is commonly agreed upon (and that possibly resembles the DRS structure for models), provided that all the relevant information is included ?

I think at this point we might be able to make faster progress by organizing a conference call to discuss these issues... 

thanks, Luca

On Feb 2, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102) wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2011, at 4:26 PM, George J. Huffman wrote:
> 
>> There are other variables that could go in the last position since the
>> original datasets contain multiple variables as "fields".  I should say
>> that the Goddard DISC puts Level before Instrument, and you might want
>> to consider why they did that.  [This is mostly an issue if you're
>> trying to build a syntax that is generally useful, not just focused on
>> gridded data.]
> 
> We (at Goddard DISC) put Level before Instrument because we anticipate that the user community for Level 3 gridded data is somewhat distinct than for Level 2 or Level 1 swath data, which require considerably more sophisticated and customized tools to work with than Level 3.  I don't know if that is as relevant in the CMIP5 context as in our more generalized search interface (as George implies.)
> --
> Dr. Christopher Lynnes     NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2    phone: 301-614-5185
> 
>