Adding a link to the OG format checker

[castelao]

With more people using it, we should get more feedback on the OG-1.0 format and the checker itself. Helping new users adopt the format should help mature the full ecosystem.

Proponents:
Moderator: @OceanGlidersCommunity/format-mantainers

Type of PR

• Typo without possible change of interpretation of the related text.
• Fix of some error, inconsistency, unforeseen limitation.
• Style that only affects visually the compiled document
• Addition that does not require change in the current structure.
• Enhancement that require changes to improve the format.

Related Issues

Related to #256. Once that issue is resolved, an update will be required on the checker.

Dates when it got review approvals

Release checklist

• Approved by at least two members of the committee?
• There were modifications after the review approvals? If so, please
  ask reviewers to update their review.
• Proponents and moderador should explicitly agree that it is ready to
  to merge.
• The moderador is the one in charge to actually merge or close this PR
  according to the final decision.

For maintainers

• Update the moderator with a volunteer from the committee. It would be
  best to have one single moderator to guide and help this PR to move
  forward. It is OK to update the moderador pass it to another one.
• Confirm that the associated branch was deleted after the merging.
• Wrap-up and close the related issues.

Comments

[emmerbodc]

Thank you @castelao,
will there be some guidance for the checker?

[callumrollo]

Can you add a link to the source for this checker? It would be much more efficient for us to run these checks locally on our files, rather than having to upload them to a website. See e.g. the IOOS compliance checker which has both a github repo and a website where files can be uploaded.

[castelao]

@callumrollo, of course I know IOOS' checker. I think Ben did a great job. I just found out that I'm listed as a contributor!

Thanks for expressing your concerns, but there is no reason to worry. As I said before in our meetings, the goal was always to have a web service and an application that anyone could run locally. Also, I appreciate your interest and insistence, but it's not yet time to open the source code. We still have some inconsistencies and flaws in the OG-1.0. For instance, what is your opinion on #256? Do you agree that including units and references in the long_name is an issue? Please add your thoughts there, and let's find a resolution to that issue. Independent of that decision, lat and lon are currently inconsistent in the manual (table Coordinates). It would be more efficient if we addressed those issues first. No checker can do the desired job while we have those problems, but the web service I developed can, as it is, help us collect user feedback and have more eyes checking for issues.

Let's focus for now on what is already open source. Is there any particular reason to omit CoTeDe in the list of open source tools? You might want to add as well tools to encode and decode Iridium transmissions (note the binaries ready to be used!), a parser for BUFR messages (that's what I used when I was contributing to the glider BUFR template), and a robust implementation of GSW to run directly in microcontrollers of our gliders and sensors.

[callumrollo]

Hi Gui, thanks for your interest in the gliders tools list! It's an ongoing and open project and as you have noted many tools have not yet been added. As the first section of the readme states, all contributions are welcome!, so please make PRs of the tools you mentioned that are not yet listed, and any others that you use. This is, after all, the reason we publish projects as open source, so that anyone can help improve them. Projects don't need to be perfect to be published openly and benefit from community contributions, we share them first and improve them together.

[castelao]

@emmerbodc , I added some minimum guidance in the checker website.

@vturpin I need a second approve to merge this, if you agree with that.