Agreed. Sounds like a good solution.
Re: netCDF opening vanilla HDF5 files…I wasn't aware that works but cool!
Agreed you wouldn't want to loose that capability either.
Mark
From: "dmh@xxxxxxxx<mailto:dmh@xxxxxxxx>" <dmh@xxxxxxxx<mailto:dmh@xxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:04 PM
To: Ed Hartnett
<edwardjameshartnett@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:edwardjameshartnett@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Pedro Vicente
<pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
"cf-metadata@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cf-metadata@xxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<cf-metadata@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cf-metadata@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Discussion forum
for the NeXus data format
<nexus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:nexus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
"netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, John Shalf
<jshalf@xxxxxxx<mailto:jshalf@xxxxxxx>>,
"Richard.E.Ullman@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Richard.E.Ullman@xxxxxxxx>"
<Richard.E.Ullman@xxxxxxxx<mailto:Richard.E.Ullman@xxxxxxxx>>, "Marinelli,
Daniel J. (GSFC-5810)"
<daniel.j.marinelli@xxxxxxxx<mailto:daniel.j.marinelli@xxxxxxxx>>, "Miller,
Mark C." <miller86@xxxxxxxx<mailto:miller86@xxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [netcdfgroup] [Hdf-forum] Detecting netCDF versus HDF5 -- PROPOSED
SOLUTIONS --REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
> But netCDF will still open files without this attribute, right?
yes.
On 4/21/2016 1:56 PM, Ed Hartnett wrote:
Howdy Dennis!
It sounds like a good solution.
But netCDF will still open files without this attribute, right?
The ability of netCDF-4 to open HDF5 files which were written by HDF5
is an important feature. It means that users can use tools that were
written for netCDF on their existing HDF5 files.
Thanks,
Ed
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:30 PM, dmh@xxxxxxxx<mailto:dmh@xxxxxxxx>
<mailto:dmh@xxxxxxxx>
<dmh@xxxxxxxx<mailto:dmh@xxxxxxxx> <mailto:dmh@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I am in the process of adding a global attribute in the root group
that captures both the netcdf library version and the hdf5 library
version
whenever a netcdf file is created. The current form is
_NCProperties="version=...|netcdflibversion=...|hdflibversion=..."
Where version is the version of the _NCProperties attribute and
the others
are e.g. 1.8.18 or 4.4.1-rc1.
Issues:
1. I am open to suggestions about changing the format or adding
info to it.
2. Of course this attribute will not exist in files written using
older versions
of the netcdf library, but at least the process will have begun.
3. This technically does not address the original issue because
there exist
hdf5 files not written by netcdf that are still compatible
with and can be
read by netcdf. Not sure this case is important or not.
=Dennis Heimbigner
Unidata
On 4/21/2016 9:33 AM, Pedro Vicente wrote:
DETECTING HDF5 VERSUS NETCDF GENERATED FILES
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
AUTHOR: Pedro Vicente
AUDIENCE:
1) HDF, netcdf developers,
Ed Hartnett
Kent Yang
2) HDF, netcdf users, that replied to this thread
Miller, Mark C.
John Shalf
3 ) netcdf tools developers
Mary Haley , NCL
4) HDF, netcdf managers and sponsors
David Pearah , CEO HDF Group
Ward Fisher, UCAR
Marinelli, Daniel J. , Richard Ullmman, Christopher Lynnes, NASA
5)
[CF-metadata] list
After this thread started 2 months ago, there was an
annoucement on the [CF-metadata] mail list
about
"a meeting to discuss current and future netCDF-CF efforts and
directions.
The meeting will be held on 24-26 May 2016 in Boulder, CO, USA
at the UCAR Center Green facility."
This would be a good topic to put on the agenda, maybe?
THE PROBLEM:
Currently it is impossible to detect if an HDF5 file was
generated by the HDF5 API or by the netCDF API.
See previous email about the reasons why.
WHY THIS MATTERS:
Software applications that need to handle both netCDF and HDF5
files cannot decide which API to use.
This includes popular visualization tools like IDL, Matlab,
NCL, HDF Explorer.
SOLUTIONS PROPOSED: 2
SOLUTION 1: Add a flag to HDF5 source
The hdf5 format specification, listed here
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1wKy-j9FSupG_v_6CUbHG6_yTgp268G1MSKWYZTaPtp7Jwdrjq5PdvPDfpgcPG5Am4TtnS27SHMG8LPa8IRjQzVL2YV703Vx8s91PsfxJsaPxgnr5W8XMlIgK1_DIvUwoA4n3aRWIWfXNlmM_k52uvVgHmLYb_H3_qHO9m_GrD5yCwc3PtSwaRqJKKPYvClxh3Ec5kZUNduDeHdv134RN1wpd-ifxDTqypTB0UVRt5PPoEFYFMeICDULUtTHvZWC6OgFpOPjimJZpxHqYhcokitB--yd0RJRCKZpTml6XbpSjBF8952hFQyBxPDfSjHzCa9mO053ACOKH-CjNrGrWa2u4yDB6jQvU51mJbDHwm-Y/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hdfgroup.org%2FHDF5%2Fdoc%2FH5.format.html
describes a sequence of bytes in the file layout that have
special meaning for the HDF5 API. It is common practice, when
designing a data format,
so leave some fields "reserved for future use".
This solution makes use of one of these empty "reserved for
future use" spaces to save a byte (for example) that describes
an enumerator
of "HDF5 compatible formats".
An "HDF5 compatible format" is a data format that uses the
HDF5 API at a lower level (usually hidden from the user of the
upper API),
and providing its own API.
This category can still be divide in 2 formats:
1) A "pure HDF5 compatible format". Example, NeXus
http://www.nexusformat.org/
NeXus just writes some metadata (attributes) on top of the
HDF5 API, that has some special meaning for the NeXus community
2) A "non pure HDF5 compatible format". Example, netCDF
Here, the format adds some extra feature besides HDF5. In the
case of netCDF, these are shared dimensions between variables.
This sub-division between 1) and 2) is irrelevant for the
problem and solution in question
The solution consists of writing a different enumerator value
on the "reserved for future use" space. For example
Value decimal 0 (current value): This file was generated by
the HDF5 API (meaning the HDF5 only API)
Value decimal 1: This file was generated by the netCDF API
(using HDF5)
Value decimal 2: This file was generated by <put here another
HDF5 based format>
and so on
The advantage of this solution is that this process involves 2
parties: the HDF Group and the other format's organization.
This allows the HDF Group to "keep track" of new HDF5 based
formats. It allows to make the other format "HDF5 certified" .
SOLUTION 2: Add some metadata to the other API on top of HDF5
This is what Nexus uses.
A Nexus file on creation writes several attributes on the root
group, like "NeXus_version" and other numeric data.
This is done using the public HDF5 API calls.
The solution for netCDF consists of the same approach, just
write some specific attributes, and a special netCDF API to
write/read them.
This solutions just requires the work of one party (the netCDF
group)
END OF RFC
In reply to people that commented in the thread
@John Shalf
>>Perhaps NetCDF (and other higher-level APIs that are built
on top of HDF5) should include an attribute attached
>>to the root group that identifies the name and version of
the API that created the file? (adopt this as a convention)
yes, that's one way to do it, Solution 2 above
@Mark Miller
>>>Hmmm. Is there any big reason NOT to try to read a netCDF
produced HDF5 file with the native HDF5 library if someone so
chooses?
It's possible to read a netCDF file using HDF5, yes.
There are 2 things that you will miss doing this:
1) the ability to inquire about shared netCDF dimensions.
2) the ability to read remotely with openDAP.
Reading with HDF5 also exposes metadata that is supposed to be
private to netCDF. See below
>>>> And, attempting to read an HDF5 file produced by Silo
using just the HDF5 library (e.g. w/o Silo) is a major pain.
This I don't understand. Why not read the Silo file with the
Silo API?
That's the all purpose of this issue, each higher level API on
top of HDF5 should be able to detect "itself".
I am not familiar with Silo, but if Silo cannot do this, then
you have the same design flaw that netCDF has.
>>> In a cursory look over the libsrc4 sources in netCDF
distro, I see a few things that might give a hint a file was
created with netCDF. . .
>>>> First, in NC_CLASSIC_MODEL, an attribute gets attached to
the root group named "_nc3_strict". So, the existence of an
attribute on the root group by that name would suggest the
HDF5 file was generated by netCDF.
I think this is done only by the "old" netCDF3 format.
>>>>> Also, I tested a simple case of nc_open, nc_def_dim,
etc. nc_close to see what it produced.
>>>> It appears to produce datasets for each 'dimension'
defined with two attributes named "CLASS" and "NAME".
This is because netCDF uses the HDF5 Dimension Scales API
internally to keep track of shared dimensions. These are
internal attributes
of Dimension Scales. This approach would not work because an
HDF5 only file with Dimension Scales would have the same
attributes.
>>>> I like John's suggestion here.
>>>>>But, any code you add to any applications now will work
*only* for files that were produced post-adoption of this
convention.
yes. there are 2 actions to take here.
1) fix the issue for the future
2) try to retroactively have some workaround that makes
possible now to differentiate a HDF5/netCDF files made before
the adopted convention
see below
>>>> In VisIt, we support >140 format readers. Over 20 of
those are different variants of HDF5 files (H5part, Xdmf,
Pixie, Silo, Samrai, netCDF, Flash, Enzo, Chombo, etc., etc.)
>>>>When opening a file, how does VisIt figure out which
plugin to use? In particular, how do we avoid one poorly
written reader plugin (which may be the wrong one for a given
file) from preventing the correct one from being found. Its
kinda a hard problem.
Yes, that's the problem we are trying to solve. I have to say,
that is quick a list of HDF5 based formats there.
>>>> Some of our discussion is captured here. . .
http://www.visitusers.org/index.php?title=Database_Format_Detection
I"ll check it out, thank you for the suggestions
@Ed Hartnett
>>>I must admit that when putting netCDF-4 together I never
considered that someone might want to tell the difference
between a "native" HDF5 file and a netCDF-4/HDF5 file.
>>>>>Well, you can't think of everything.
This is a major design flaw.
If you are in the business of designing data file formats, one
of the things you have to do is how to make it possible to
identify it from the other formats.
>>> I agree that it is not possible to canonically tell the
difference. The netCDF-4 API does use some special attributes
to track named dimensions,
>>>>and to tell whether classic mode should be enforced. But
it can easily produce files without any named dimensions, etc.
>>>So I don't think there is any easy way to tell.
I remember you wrote that code together with Kent Yang from
the HDF Group.
At the time I was with the HDF Group but unfortunately I did
follow closely what you were doing.
I don't remember any design document being circulated that
explains the internals of the "how to" make the netCDF
(classic) model of shared dimensions
use the hierarchical group model of HDF5.
I know this was done using the HDF5 Dimension Scales (that I
wrote), but is there any design document that explains it?
Maybe just some internal email exchange between you and Kent Yang?
Kent, how are you?
Do you remember having any design document that explains this?
Maybe something like a unique private attribute that is
written somewhere in the netCDF file?
@Mary Haley, NCL
NCL is a widely used tool that handles both netCDF and HDF5
Mary, how are you?
How does NCL deal with the case of reading both pure HDF5
files and netCDF files that use HDF5?
Would you be interested in joining a community based effort to
deal with this, in case this is an issue for you?
@David Pearah , CEO HDF Group
I volunteer to participate in the effort of this RFC together
with the HDF Group (and netCDF Group).
Maybe we could make a "task force" between HDF Group, netCDF
Group and any volunteer (such as tools developers that happen
to be in these mail lists)?
The "task force" would have 2 tasks:
1) make a HDF5 based convention for the future and
2) try to retroactively salvage the current design issue of netCDF
My phone is 217-898-9356 <tel:217-898-9356>, you are welcome
to call in anytime.
----------------------
Pedro Vicente
pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
https://twitter.com/_pedro__vicente
http://www.space-research.org/
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Miller, Mark C. <mailto:miller86@xxxxxxxx
<mailto:miller86@xxxxxxxx>>
*To:* HDF Users Discussion List
<mailto:hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
*Cc:*
netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> ; Ward Fisher
<mailto:wfisher@xxxxxxxx <mailto:wfisher@xxxxxxxx>>
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 02, 2016 7:07 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Hdf-forum] Detecting netCDF versus HDF5
I like John's suggestion here.
But, any code you add to any applications now will work
*only* for
files that were produced post-adoption of this convention.
There are probably a bazillion files out there at this
point that
don't follow that convention and you probably still want your
applications to be able to read them.
In VisIt, we support >140 format readers. Over 20 of those are
different variants of HDF5 files (H5part, Xdmf, Pixie, Silo,
Samrai, netCDF, Flash, Enzo, Chombo, etc., etc.) When
opening a
file, how does VisIt figure out which plugin to use? In
particular, how do we avoid one poorly written reader plugin
(which may be the wrong one for a given file) from
preventing the
correct one from being found. Its kinda a hard problem.
Some of our discussion is captured here. . .
http://www.visitusers.org/index.php?title=Database_Format_Detection
Mark
From: Hdf-forum
<hdf-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:hdf-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:hdf-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:hdf-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hdf-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> on behalf of John
Shalf <jshalf@xxxxxxx<mailto:jshalf@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:jshalf@xxxxxxx>
<mailto:jshalf@xxxxxxx <mailto:jshalf@xxxxxxx>>>
Reply-To: HDF Users Discussion List
<hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 1:02 PM
To: HDF Users Discussion List
<hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>
Cc:
"netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>"
<netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>, Ward Fisher
<wfisher@xxxxxxxx<mailto:wfisher@xxxxxxxx>
<mailto:wfisher@xxxxxxxx>
<mailto:wfisher@xxxxxxxx <mailto:wfisher@xxxxxxxx>>>
Subject: Re: [Hdf-forum] Detecting netCDF versus HDF5
Perhaps NetCDF (and other higher-level APIs that are
built on
top of HDF5) should include an attribute attached to
the root
group that identifies the name and version of the API that
created the file? (adopt this as a convention)
-john
On Mar 2, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Pedro Vicente
<pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
Hi Ward
As you know, Data Explorer is going to be a general
purpose data reader for many formats, including
HDF5 and
netCDF.
Here
http://www.space-research.org/
Regarding the handling of both HDF5 and netCDF, it
seems
there is a potential issue, which is, how to tell
if any
HDF5 file was saved by the HDF5 API or by the
netCDF API?
It seems to me that this is not possible. Is this
correct?
netCDF uses an internal function NC_check_file_type to
examine the first few bytes of a file, and for
example for
any HDF5 file the test is
/* Look at the magic number */
/* Ignore the first byte for HDF */
if(magic[1] == 'H' && magic[2] == 'D' &&
magic[3] == 'F') {
*filetype = FT_HDF;
*version = 5;
The problem is that this test works for any HDF5
file and
for any netCDF file, which makes it impossible to tell
which is which.
Which makes it impossible for any general purpose data
reader to decide to use the netCDF API or the HDF5
API.
I have a possible solution for this , but before
going any
further, I would just like to confirm that
1) Is indeed not possible
2) See if you have a solid workaround for this,
excluding the dumb ones, for example deciding on a
extension .nc or .h5, or traversing the HDF5 file
to see
if it's non netCDF conforming one. Yes, to further
complicate things, it is possible that the above
test says
OK for a HDF5 file, but then the read by the
netCDF API
fails because the file is a HDF5 non netCDF conformant
Thanks
----------------------
Pedro Vicente
pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:pedro.vicente@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
http://www.space-research.org/
_______________________________________________
Hdf-forum is for HDF software users discussion.
Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1r-EJFFfg6rWlpQsvXstBNTjaHQaKT_NkYRN0Jj_f-Z3EK0-hs6IbYc8XUBRyPsH3mU3CS0iiY7_qnchCA0QxNzQt270d_2HikCwpAWFmuHdacin62eaODutktDSOULIJmVbVYqFVSKWPzoX7kdP0yN9wIzSFxZfTwfhU8ebsN409xRg1PsW_8cvNiWzxDNm9wv9yBf9yK6nkEm-bOx2S0kBLbg9WfIChWzZrkpE3AHU9I-c2ZRH_IN-UF4g_g0_Dh4qE1VETs7tZTfKd1ox1MtBmeyKf7EKUCd3ezR9EbI5tK4hCU5qW4v5WWOxOrD17e8yCVmob27xz84Lr3bCK5wIQdH5VzFRTtyaAhudpt9E/http%3A%2F%2Flists.hdfgroup.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhdf-forum_lists.hdfgroup.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/hdf5
_______________________________________________
Hdf-forum is for HDF software users discussion.
Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1r-EJFFfg6rWlpQsvXstBNTjaHQaKT_NkYRN0Jj_f-Z3EK0-hs6IbYc8XUBRyPsH3mU3CS0iiY7_qnchCA0QxNzQt270d_2HikCwpAWFmuHdacin62eaODutktDSOULIJmVbVYqFVSKWPzoX7kdP0yN9wIzSFxZfTwfhU8ebsN409xRg1PsW_8cvNiWzxDNm9wv9yBf9yK6nkEm-bOx2S0kBLbg9WfIChWzZrkpE3AHU9I-c2ZRH_IN-UF4g_g0_Dh4qE1VETs7tZTfKd1ox1MtBmeyKf7EKUCd3ezR9EbI5tK4hCU5qW4v5WWOxOrD17e8yCVmob27xz84Lr3bCK5wIQdH5VzFRTtyaAhudpt9E/http%3A%2F%2Flists.hdfgroup.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhdf-forum_lists.hdfgroup.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/hdf5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Hdf-forum is for HDF software users discussion.
Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:Hdf-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://secure-web.cisco.com/13uklvjmU6j7lQMFv4FEQ5naH9A_wipLX0OS6-gWz02tHyPOcpKoBIbeO6IAx4NhGeFC2NsOHgpNoyLOhXIOKRa7jXYD_4hmhW_A_u01OoLp8ThO66jhqsGnswO03uCRdsTNbfUu-iAMC4Y5jDBNJKbFvgmlZYu8tq6USyztV1oBng_Hp07B3j8dR2Aw9u-heuJpA2asO3Iudir9iyHQixAmWOrVxDQOy7jlWfVMOV4FtehEZJApCfa3LZ9zjcZT-cmDHvgMIntMn8kXA_ZYt3zeO-xjEeSRB_D49KJvjx77t4Z6UwPpToTw8FGAmHcUWuCGb6zHNfCBRS7Cm1b6OJdxkvP37MNfNjR6A3DVZhfo/http%3A%2F%2Flists.hdfgroup.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fhdf-forum_lists.hdfgroup.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/hdf5
_______________________________________________
netcdfgroup mailing list
netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
_______________________________________________
netcdfgroup mailing list
netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:netcdfgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
For list information or to unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
