Closed RobertPincus closed 3 years ago
@observingClouds I would be curious for your ideas.
I think this is the best solution for now until we have overcome some of the hierarchical access questions by e.g. specific functions or/and search functionality.
The only issue I still see here is the accessor-name all
. This is very inclusive and basically questions every other dataset that is already connected with a SWIFT buoy ( track
) or any additional data that might still come. Can we come up with a different name? My best suggestion is Level_1
, although it is only a bit more satisfying than all
, especially because I cannot recall that we have defined what each level means in this community.
Would it make more sense to simply have cat.SWIFTNN point directly to all the data?
Not sure, if I understand your question correctly @RobertPincus. Are you proposing to bann the track
data? I think it will be good in the long run, if we don't have cat.<thing>
directly point to a dataset, but always have an additional accessor to be able to add further datasets without changing the access structure.
This reorganizes data from the SWIFT drifting buoys to address #62
At present there are two sources of SWIFT data:
cat.SWIFTNN.track
points to the track data assembled by Bjorn andcat.swifts.SWIFTNN
points to the complete data including the track, as produced by the data providers.This PR adds
cat.SWIFTNN.all
to point to All The Data and removescat.swifts.SWIFTNN
.I am not convinced, though, that it makes sense to have a
.track
entry with just the track data and.all
for the complete data, which include the track data. Would it make more sense to simply havecat.SWIFTNN
point directly to all the data?