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

[Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102)]

On Feb 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Cinquini, Luca (3880) wrote:

> 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 ?

Since my philosophy is to tailor for the expected user community, I defer to you and your colleagues regarding the order, since you know the community.  My main interest is just ensuring the inclusion of the relevant information.

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

--
Dr. Christopher Lynnes     NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2    phone: 301-614-5185