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

[Cinquini, Luca (3880)]

Hi all,
	Dean Williams has kindly made the following number available for tomorrow's conference call:

 (925) 424-8105 
 access code 305757#

The call is scheduled for 8am PST / 9am MST / 10am CST / 11am EST / 16pm GMT / 17pm France/Germany. We will discuss the adoption of community-wide metadata conventions for observational datasets that are going to be made part of the CMIP5 archive.

Thanks in advance to all for participating,

Luca

On Feb 9, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Christensen, Sigurd W. wrote:

> Luca,
>   Several of us think that a call Thursday would be good, but we probably won't finish then.
> 
>   We think that not only a different CMOR table, but also a different directory structure/filename structure may be appropriate for three or more of the categories mentioned in the link:
> 
> -Decide on whether to have one single CMOR table for observations (currently "obsSites"), or more than one depending on types of observational data:  
>   *remote sensed (grids and swaths)
>   *in-situ stations (time series and profiles)
>   *trajectory-based observations
>   *in-situ gridded products
> 
>   The discussion thus far emphasizes fields and order for naming conventions for satellite-based data.  Perhaps those can be finalized Thursday.  But point-oriented surface and/or profile time-series data (such as ARM, AmeriFlux, etc.), and trajectory-based observations, will likely need more consideration.  Karl, on January 31, indicated that variable name, modeling realm, and frequency should be carried to the DRS (Data Reference System), but the rest could in essence be tailored to the needs of observational data. 
> 
>   Thanks,
>   Giri and Sig
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cinquini, Luca (3880) [mailto:Luca.Cinquini at jpl.nasa.gov] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 15:58
> To: Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102)
> Cc: Huffman, George J. (GSFC-613.1)[SCIENCE SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS]; Karl Taylor; Steve Hankin; Bryan Lawrence; go-essp-tech at ucar.edu; Sébastien Denvil; climate-obs; McCoy, Renata
> Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] Extending the DRS syntax to observations
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>