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

[Williams, Dean N.]

Hi Luca,

    This time works for me. Are there others from the other NASA
institutions that should be present for the meeting?

Best regards,
    Dean

On 2/8/11 3:19 PM, "Cinquini, Luca (3880)" <Luca.Cinquini at jpl.nasa.gov>
wrote:

> Hi Chris,
> 
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102) wrote:
> 
>> Luca,
>>  I have another meeting at that time, so I may not be able to make it.
> sorry to hear this, hope you can still make it
>>  Most of the spec looks good.  The one suggestion I would make is to add to
>> the specification what kinds of characters are allowed or not allowed in the
>> <processing_level_and_product_version>.
>>  For instance, is it just alphanumeric as you have in the examples, or are
>> characters such as '.', '_' and '-' allowed?
>>  Also, now that you have expanded to include the product_version, the AIRS
>> example should be modified to reflect that (e.g.,
>> /cmip5/observations/nasa/aqua/airs/mon/atmos/ta/l3v005/vYYYYMMDD/).
> Thanks, I updated the examples, although the original intention was to have
> both "processing level" and "product version" to be somewhat flexible, left
> for the data provider to decide how to best describe their data. We could
> mandate an exact specification, if people want to.
> thanks again,
> Luca
>> 
>> On Feb 8, 2011, at 3:57 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Christopher Lynnes     NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2    phone: 301-614-5185
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>