4.7 Article

A data model of the Climate and Forecast metadata conventions (CF-1.6) with a software implementation (cf-python v2.1)

期刊

GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 4619-4646

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/gmd-10-4619-2017

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK National Centre for Atmospheric Science
  2. European Research Council
  3. European Commission [247220, 312979]
  4. US Department of Energy (USDOE) by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  5. Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program of the USDOE's Office of Science
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [ncas10008, ncas10009, ncas10005, ncas10010] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. NERC [ncas10008, ncas10005, ncas10010] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The CF (Climate and Forecast) metadata conventions are designed to promote the creation, processing, and sharing of climate and forecasting data using Network Common Data Form (netCDF) files and libraries. The CF conventions provide a description of the physical meaning of data and of their spatial and temporal properties, but they depend on the netCDF file encoding which can currently only be fully understood and interpreted by someone familiar with the rules and relationships specified in the conventions documentation. To aid in development of CF-compliant software and to capture with a minimal set of elements all of the information contained in the CF conventions, we propose a formal data model for CF which is independent of netCDF and describes all possible CF-compliant data. Because such data will often be analysed and visualised using software based on other data models, we compare our CF data model with the ISO 19123 coverage model, the Open Geospatial Consortium CF netCDF standard, and the Unidata Common Data Model. To demonstrate that this CF data model can in fact be implemented, we present cf-python, a Python software library that conforms to the model and can manipulate any CF-compliant dataset.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据