ncSOS vs 52N on IOOS Catalog Map

[ebridger]

I have a question about the IOOS Catalog display of regional SOS services on the Catalog map, which has been brought to my attention.
http://catalog.ioos.us/map/
Choose NERACOOS and SOS Service Type.
All results show “UNKNOWN” or “Attribute not present in source data”.

This effects all the regions which are using the ncSOS plugin for THREDDS, 6 out of 11.

NERACOOS, PacIOOS, CARICOOS, SCCOOS, MARACOOS.
Regions using 52 North have no such problem.

NERACOOS is using TDS 1.3 and ncSOS 1.1

Is there an explanation for this? Is there a solution?

[kknee]

@ebridger we are looking into the issue.

[ebridger]

ncSOS issue #11 shows that by adding long_name and short_name attributes to the station variable in the NetCDF files served by ncSOS the display in the catalog map is much improved. But at the same time there remain a long list of UNKNOWN in the map drop down list. I suspect these are old records? What would be the way to start over? Clear out the underlying NGDC Catalog?

[emiliom]

@ebridger, NANOOS doesn't currently use ncSOS, but I'm curious about the extent of this problem. Here and in ncSOS issue #171 you've focused on on the IOOS Catalog map (FYI, in the previous comment you called issue 11 but linked to issue 171; based on the content, 11 is clearly wrong). But is the problem also present in the IOOS Catalog tabular listings of datasets and services, eg, what's accessible from http://catalog.ioos.us/providers/NERACOOS ? I see a bunch of "None" and "UNKNOWN" for many datasets there, but I don't have the time and patience to see if that's the same problem you've been talking about for the Catalog map.

NANOOS is working on setting up netcdf files for historical data access. We'll make these available via THREDDS, eventually. It sounds like we should be planning to include the additional IOOS attributes (short_name, platform_type, sector, etc) discussed in ncSOS issue #171 ... All those are in our 52N SOS, but the guidance we've been reading for netcdf (from NODC templates, etc) hadn't steered us in that direction for netcdf files; that's not unexpected when you think about it, but it's good to keep in mind this extra set of attributes.