Re: [bufrtables] More on table versions

NOTE: The bufrtables mailing list is no longer active.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

Hi Milan:

I see, so you think that the only changes of the master tables are from version 0, so if we never see any messsages that use version 0, we should be ok to use just version 13.
Ive been assuming that local tables are only allowed to use descriptors in the 
allowed range of x=48-63 and y=192-255. All other descriptors must come from 
the master table. Thus, if we dont see descriptors in the local ranges, we know 
we dont need a local table. Do you assume the same?


Milan Dragosavac wrote:
Hi John,

As I mentioned before, the differences appear at the beginning of bufr usage. Version 0 was experimental and probably all this is relevant only
for Ecmwf data. At the time no one was creating bufr data except us.
So in practice I would not be too much concerned about that. I would use
version 13 and make all necessary links. What happens in practice is that data producers set in the section 1 in many cases wrong information about local tables used and so on. Ecmwf software creates table names out of information from section 1 to avoid any possible clashes. The new links are needed only if software can not find table in the BUFR_TABLES directory. The reason is usually false usage of local tables and than table name contains origination centre, sub-centre master version and local version. The tables to be loaded are printed if they are missing and you can make links for those tables.

Best regards

Milan Dragosavac

Shinfield Park, Reading, Berkshire, RG2 9AX, UK

Tel: (+44 118) 949 9403
Fax: (+44 118) 986 9450
Telex: 847908 ECMWF G
E-mail: milan.dragosavac@xxxxxxxxx

  • 2008 messages navigation, sorted by:
    1. Thread
    2. Subject
    3. Author
    4. Date
    5. ↑ Table Of Contents
  • Search the bufrtables archives: