NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.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.
Quoting Ethan Davis <address@hidden>: > Umm. Wasn't Joe saying that the difference in meaning between datasets and > collections is that collections contain related objects and datasets > contain > alternate views of the dataset or subsets of the dataset? > > To show that differnce, it seems like there would have to be a difference > between <collection> elements and <dataset> elements. They would be > identical > except that <dataset> elements can contain <access> elements and > <collection> > elements cannot. > > Joe said that, but I was steering away from that interpretation of access elements (as was John's last e-mail). In fact, there is no difference between the two things: 1) collections contain related objects 2) datasets contain subsets of the dataset. i.e. subsets of a dataset are related objects. access elements within a particular dataset promise alternate delivery of that complete dataset object. datasets within a dataset promise part of that dataset: the relationship between (sub-)datasets and access objects of the parent dataset is more-or-less the same relationship between (sub-datasets) and parent datasets. More to the point, you should not be talking about those relationships -- you should be talking about relating access elements of subdatasets to access elements of datasets. In summary -- do not name access elements -- it just leads to confusion. Benno