NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
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 archives: