Some comments are embedded.
On 3/29/2011 6:50 AM, Jeff Ator wrote:
To expand on some previous points...
* The WMO does maintain machine-readable versions of the tables, for
both BUFR and GRIB, at
to Paolo for pointing this out in his earlier email. Different
versions of the tables can be downloaded from this site. For BUFR
at least, table version 13 is a superset of all previous versions,
so it can be used to decode BUFR messages from all previous
versions. This is no longer true beginning with version 14, where
it's possible that some deprecated items have now been removed or
that some descriptor characteristics have been modified from
previous versions of the table. So for BUFR, decoding centers
should maintain copies of tables 13, 14 and onward in whatever
format(s) are required by their local processing software.
It is important that the WMO maintain canonical copies of versions going
forward. Also, one should realize that there may be some errors in these
tables, these will get fixed as they are noticed and corrected or
clarified. Eventually we will have tables that dont have errors, but
then new entries are added and the process starts again. So both
encoding and decoding centers will need to keep up with the latest
canonical tables. One cant download them once and keep using them for 10
* John rightly points out that the proper use of this table version
number by message originators would eliminate the problem outlined
in his paper. In my experience, this problem stems mostly from a
casual attitude by originators in ensuring they've used the proper
version number in their messages. Many originators use software
where this number is often hardcoded and so becomes, at best, an
afterthought. This is an education issue that WMO is working hard
to address among its members.
* There's also a concerted effort among members to develop BUFR
templates for certain types of commonly-reported data such as
SYNOP, BUOY, TEMP/PILOT, CLIMAT, etc. This is a by-product of
WMO's ongoing migration from these old alphanumeric fixed-field
formats to BUFR. The list of templates is available at
, and while their use isn't mandatory, it does make things a lot
simpler for downstream codes which have to interpret the decoded
output, and which is another point that John made in his paper.
this is helpful.
one doesnt know for sure that the bufr message is using a template, i
think, without actually comparing the message to the template?
* If anyone has a requirement for a new BUFR or GRIB2 descriptor
which they feel would be reasonable to propose as a new official
WMO descriptor (vs. just using their own local descriptor number),
please let me know. I represent the U.S. to the WMO codes group
which reviews and approves these types of requests. Depending on
the nature of the request, there are fast-track procedures
available which can lead to formal approval within a matter of 2-3
* As originally envisioned, BUFR and GRIB2 weren't designed to be
formats for archive storage, but rather for efficient real-time
exchange of meteorological data. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean
they can't be used as archive formats. We do this here at NCEP,
and the approach we use involves storing a copy of the applicable
table with each archived dataset. Note that, for BUFR at least,
table information can be encoded into BUFR messages using
descriptors from Class 0 of Table B. When this is done, the
necessary table information can be easily retained alongside the
data in a very compact and efficient manner, using one or two
additional BUFR messages at the head of each archived file. Such
an approach could even be used when exchanging real-time data sets
between centers, at the cost of one or two additional BUFR
messages. This would eliminate the problem of receiving centers
having to "guess" whether the table version number in each data
message was encoded properly.
We arent yet dealing completely with this way of storing the tables in
bufr messages, but it certainly solves the problem, as long as those
messages are stored in the same file as the messages that they refer to.
Assuming this works, I would modify my conclusion that "BUFR/GRIB is not
suitable as long-term storage formats" to add "unless the tables are
stored in the file, etc".
* In my opinion, when everyone follows the rules (e.g. using
official descriptors with proper table version numbers), the
process works very well. The trick of course is to get everyone
(and their software) to pay attention to the rules. But this is
true of any format and is not unique to BUFR and GRIB.
Of course, errors are possible no matter what, but this particular
problem is specific to table-driven formats like GRIB and especially
BUFR. It doesnt occur, for example, in netCDF when using CF conventions.
However, its true that one ultimately refers to human-readable documents
With best regards,
Thanks for your thoughts!