NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
On 11/10/2010 10:55 AM, James Gallagher wrote:
Hello, My apologies if there is a better place to post questions about NCML...I've been working on the automatic generations of aggregations using NCML. That is, using software to crawl servers and build/write NCML files that form aggregations of files on the crawled servers.Question: Is there consensus on the best way to represent time (assuming it is the new dimension) in a JoinNew aggregation?Background: I have the code working and it's currently using ISO 8601 to represent time, although I can easily change that. This is work that comes from crawling to build metadata records for dataset catalogs - aggregations fit into this because they are an effective way to mitigate some problems with very large metadata records choking catalog software (and some other semantic issues regarding 'inventories').James -- James Gallagher jgallagher at opendap.org 406.723.8663 _______________________________________________ thredds mailing list thredds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFor list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
Hi James:Do you mean the best way to represent time in the "coordValue" attribute on the netcdf element? That is the way I was doing it, and I trie to get CF to accept those ISO strings as valid coordinates. I failed, so I think I switched to using just numbers. So I think its reasonable to use ISO dates, and I accept that in the CDM, but its not CF compliant unfortunately.
John
thredds archives: