Re: Preliminary HDF5 Dimension documents

Hi John,

> >> John Caron <caron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >> we need shared dimensions: almost all higher level Conventions rely 
> >> on them. they dont always rely on them for just coordinate variables. 
> >> Generalizarions of coordinate variables also need shared dimensions, 
> >> but cannot use coordinate variables.
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Pardon my ignorance.
> >
> > Could you give me some pointers to the "higher level Conventions"
> > that we should try to target.
> >
> > (I think you can see where I'm coming from: if there is a requirement
> > here, we need to state it carefully and make sure we are addressing it.)
> 
> Conventions are a way of adding semantics to what is really a pretty 
> low-level data model. Heres a non-exhaustive list:
> 
>   http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/packages/netcdf/conventions.html
> 
> I dont know that you need to target these specifically, although it 
> would be intereting to add library support so that these Conventions are 
> not so necessary. The most interesting of those would be explicit 
> georefrencing, of which coordinate variables / dimension scales are a 
> good start. If theres intereste in adding a more complete coordinate 
> system specification, i would be all for it.
    Hmm, there's a lot there...  Which is most important?  As we try to add
"real" coordinate system support, I'd like an example or two to see how well
the extensions to HDF5 would support the most commonly used conventions.

    Quincey