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

Tue Feb 8 14:20:59 MST 2011

Luca,

That time works for me.

Steve
-----
Stephen W Berrick
Earth Science Data Systems          +1.202.358.1757  Phone
Earth Science Division (DK)           +1.571.357.2142  Google Voice
Science Mission Directorate           Stephen.W.Berrick at nasa.gov<mailto:Stephen.W.Berrick at nasa.gov>
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC  20546

On Feb 8, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Cinquini, Luca (3880) wrote:

Hi all,
I would like to propose to have a conference call to discuss and hopefully resolve any remaining issues concerning metadata conventions for CMIP5 observations. Would anybody object if we had this call in only two days, next Thursday February 10, at 8am PST/11am EST - which I think is is 4pm in the UK and 5pm in France and Germany ? If this is too soon, we could postpone till next week.

As a remainder, this is the URL of the current proposal:

http://oodt.jpl.nasa.gov/wiki/display/CLIMATE/Data+and+Metadata+Requirements+for+CMIP5+Observational+Datasets

which at the very beginning contains a summary of the issues still open. Please reply if you can't make the meeting and you really would like to attend, or if you think there are other issues to discuss.

Best regards,
thanks, Luca

P.S.: if the conference is a go, we'll setup a phone line....

On Feb 2, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102) wrote:

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/go-essp-tech/attachments/20110208/c12b8935/attachment.html 