ACDD 1.3 Revisions/Adjudication Mtg #1 10/02

JG: approach: going back to the terms defined in 1.1, clarify definitions and add new elements as needed

date_created: two conflicting definitions
NG: I have realtime data and I will always update this value; we don't have any 'original' date (we start publishing as soon as the instruments are turned on)
JB: creation is ongoing, but version of the dataset production hasn't changed. "semantics".
NG: netCDF file attribute
JB: date for the data in that one file or for the entire body of files?
NG: we use date_created to know which version of the file they are using. Is there a use case for realtime data to maintain the original date_created date?
JG: there are times when people want to know when the file was created for the first time (e.g., to see how long it's been around)
BS: clarify date_modified def?
NG: modified includes data and metadata
DS:? date_values_modified works?
NG: no, the new file dates attributes have been overturned as replacements
JG: how/what to vote on? it doesn't seem like we will have a way forward without quite a bit more discussion
BS: date_modified: old def "date on which this data was last modified"
vote results - inconclusive - all dates* fields are off the table until later

creator_name
JG: should creator_name should be just a person, or can it be a project, institution, or role
HB: should be allowance for creator to be a group, at NCDC generic email - keep it open
NG: understand the need for flexibilitly
AM: too much ambiguity makes it difficult to map - need to maybe have more elements for creator institutions or groups
BS: can we add a type as a way to indicate what the creator attributes are naming?
DS: role and individuals
RESULTS: enough consensus to move on, will be adding a field called 'creator_type' to clarify if person, organization or project.

JB: consider adding (did not catch this)

institution: questions about definition
JG: is it the institution creating the data set, or institution of the user creating the data set?
NG: this is not our attribute, ok with the CF definition
BS: agree - better to not change the CF definition
HB: agree - better to not change the CF definition
RESULTS: keep as is

project
definition
DS: asked the question - support multiple?
RS: could be advantage to be able list more than one, for what many projects feel equally responsible
JG: a user could leave this empty and use contributors
NG: Jim Baird noted that this is used by CMIP 5, would prefer to leave def as is, but commas can still be used to list multiple
Peng: better to not leave to interpretation
JG: change sentence to include (s). Clarify outside of definitions on how to list multiple items in one
RS/JG: not true for institutions - because defined by CF
Peng: wonders if the _type attribute would help us with date_created etc. (we won't discuss it now...)
RESULTS: inconclusive

Wrap up/Next Call: Next week same time
JG: please try to NOT bring up new issues during the adjudication process.
AJ: prefer if discussion was on mailing list
JG: the spreadsheets not good for threads
JG: recommend: put issue/topic in email subject line so that people can follow threads and john can summarize better. John will attempt to migrate results to Active Issues
JG:  will update the Version Changes spreadsheet, and reorganize to make it easier to work with