Appendix B: New element in XML file header to record the "first published date"

[larsbarring]

Title

Appendix B: New element in XML file header to record the "first published date".

Moderator

not yet

Moderator Status Review [last updated: YYYY-MM-DD]

Brief comment on current status, update periodically

Requirement Summary

This proposal is a component of a larger package of changes (see io/#457) to improve the linkage between the xml file version of the standard name table and the corresponding schema file. This will eventually involve updating all versions of the xml files to improve their format and get rid of several xml syntax errors. Currently the xml files include the element <last_updated>, which in practice records the publication date. When updating the xml files this element should be updated to record the date of the update. As the date when a particular standard name table was published is important information, a new element has to be added to hold the date when the version was published.

Technical Proposal Summary

Only a simple addition is needed in Appendix B specification of the "header section" of the xml file: include the new element <first_published>yyyy-mm-ddThh:mm:ss</first_published>.

Benefits

The immediate benefit is that it is possible to make it clear when the table was first published, and possible date(s) when the file was updated.

Status Quo

This enhancement is of purely technical nature and do not have any bearing on the CF Conventions for netCDF file metadata. Taking the broader perspective, if this is not implemented, either it will not be possible to make a distinction between when a standard name table xml file was published and when/if it has been updated, or such updates will not be possible at all.

Associated pull request

#512

[JonathanGregory]

I support this change, thanks.

[davidhassell]

I support it too - the XML change looks fine.

[larsbarring]

Thanks David!

I think we can start the three weeks countdown, which then ends on March 29th.

[larsbarring]

As no further comments have appeared this proposal is accepted and the associated PR is ready to be merged. Couid some one please do that (ping @davidhassell, @sadielbartholomew, @JonathanGregory)

Many thanks,
Lars

[JonathanGregory]

Thanks, @larsbarring. Merging now.