Dear Simon,
Sorry for technical remark: the Manual on GTS is primarily taken care of by
ET-CTS in my understanding. I agreee ET-OI is actual center of discussion
since they encounter issues of operation.
Best,
Eizi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Elliott" <Simon.Elliott@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Little, Chris" <chris.little@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Dominic Lowe"
<dominic.lowe@xxxxxxxxxx>; <galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<CF-NetCDF-1.0.SWG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ross, Gil" <gil.ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Tandy,Jeremy"
<jeremy.tandy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [galeon] [CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg] CF-netCDF SWG Session Summary:Sept
2011 TC Meeting
Dear all,
With regard to our discussions in the WMO context, we were taking into
account the fact that the various Editions of BUFR and GRIB identify
themselves in Section 0. Applications need to take into account the
Edition number but cannot assume any particular naming convention (not all
BUFR/GRIB data are on the GTS and therefore these data need not be subject
to the WMO GTS file naming convention). As such we saw little value in
distinct file name extensions for the different Editions within the WMO
GTS file naming convention.
I believe the discussion took place in the ICT-ISS meeting, rather than
the IPET-DRC. File names do not currently fall under the explicit TORs of
the IPET-DRC, but rather ET-OI who are rather more involved in the
maintenance of the Manual on the GTS.
Cheers,
Simon
Dr Simon Elliott
Chair - WMO Inter Programme Expert Team on Data Representation and Codes
Chair - CGMS Task Force on Satellite Data and Codes
EUMETSAT
Eumetsat-Allee 1
64295 Darmstadt
Germany
Tel: +49 6151 807 3850
Fax: +49 6151 807 3040
E-mail: simon.elliott@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.eumetsat.int
-----Original Message-----
From: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:33 PM
To: Dominic Lowe; galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
CF-NetCDF-1.0.SWG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Wright, Bruce; Ross, Gil; Tandy, Jeremy; Simon Elliott
Subject: RE: [CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg] [galeon] CF-netCDF SWG Session
Summary:Sept 2011 TC Meeting
Dear Ben, Dominic,
There was a similar discussion in the WMO format group (IPET-DRC) with
Simon Elliott, EUMETSAT, concerning the WMO file naming convention.
We took the approach that the format should be specified as just NetCDF
(actually 'nc') rather than nc3 or nc4; GRIB (grb) rather than grb1 or
grb2; BUFR (bfr) rather than bfr1,2,3,4....
The argument was that current (monolithic) applications 'know' what
version of a format they support and can behave appropriately.
The suggestion for separate Mime types, rather than a single parameterised
type, makes sense when the majority of applications are Mime aware and are
programmed to do the correct negotiation at the HTTP level, rather than
within their application environment.
HTH, Chris
Chris Little
OGC Meteorology & Oceanography Domain Working Group
International Telecoms & Projects
Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44(0)1392 886278 Fax: +44(0)1392 885681 Mobile: +44(0)7753 880514
E-mail: chris.little@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From:
cf-netcdf-1.0.swg-bounces+chris.little=metoffice.gov.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cf-netcdf-1.0.swg-bounces+chris.little=metoffice.gov.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dominic Lowe
Sent: 14 October 2011 09:55
To: galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; CF-NetCDF-1.0.SWG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg] [galeon] CF-netCDF SWG Session
Summary:Sept 2011 TC Meeting
Hi all,
On 13/10/11 18:06, jgallagher@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
+1 for x-netcdf with an optional conventions attribute
Just to note that the x- prefix is for mimetypes that are not registered
with IANA. So if we are talking about what to register we should be
talking about application/netcdf or application/netcdf-3 (or 4) without
the x-.
My preference would be to make a distinction between NetCDF3 and NetCDF4
filetypes as they require different tools to read them (or at least the
tools must be linked to different libraries).
Some clients might wish to express a preference in the HTTP Accept header
about which format they get back for a particular resource (if there is an
option).
You could extend this argument to the conventions but that might be
getting impractical - I agree with the use of optional parameters there,
although not sure how much they are used in practice for mime-type
negotiation?
Regards,
Dom
--
Scanned by iCritical.
_______________________________________________
CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg mailing list
CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-netcdf-1.0.swg
_______________________________________________
galeon mailing list
galeon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information, to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
