WIP: Add Infrastructure Guide

[ethanrd]

Add an Infrastructure Guide to document how we manage the infrastructure behind the CF Website, the CF Conventions document, the CF Standard Names table, and the CF standardized region list.

@japamment and @feggleton - Could you comment on or add to the CF Standard Names section?

@davidhassell, @marqh, and @painter1 -- I think you were all involved in the 1.8 release. Could you look over the CF Conventions Doc section?

[ethanrd]

I rebased this on master to get fix for build.

[ethanrd]

@japamment - I added a section on the CF Standard Names process. I pulled text from your comment on the ontology discussion. I broke it into sections and reworked it a bit to fit here. Please take a look and let me know if it looks OK or needs changes.

[ethanrd]

Oops! Mistakenly marked as ready for review. Set it back to draft once I realized.

[japamment]

Hi Ethan @ethanrd

The standard names part looks good so far. I spotted one typo and I have some suggestions for additional text. I'm not sure that I can edit your pull request myself so my suggestions are below:

Line 70: Typo ("produces" should just say "produce")

Add an extra paragraph after line 91:
For each CF Standard Names table release, the CEDA Vocabulary Editor
produces a comma separated file suitable for uploading to the NVS which contains mappings
from the P07 standard names vocabulary to P06 (the BODC units vocabulary). This accommodates the need to specify canonical units for standard names within the RDF schema used by NVS. The CSV file also contains mappings between updated entries in P07 and deprecated entries. This accommodates the standard name aliases within the NVS RDF schema. The mappings file is uploaded to the NVS2 editor once the standard names update TSV file has passed the BODC checking scripts.

Line 102: Change title to "CF Standardized Region List and Area Type Table"
Then add the following text.
The CF Standardized Region List and Area Type Tables are managed following the same process as CF standard names. Requests for changes to these vocabularies should be made using issues on the [CF Discussion repo][cf-discuss].

Both vocabularies are maintained as XML files following a similar schema to that laid out for standard names in Appendix B of the CF Conventions. The XML schemas for the Standardized Region List and Area Type Tables do not include tags for units, which are not applicable to these vocabularies. There are currently no entries for aliases in either table, although these could be added if needed.

These vocabularies are much smaller than the Standard Name Table and change far less frequently. They are currently updated by manually editing the XML files. These are then rendered as HTML files by running XSLT scripts similar to that used for standard names. The XML and HTML files are pushed to the GitHub Website repo
in Data/standardized-region-list/<version>/[build|src] and Data/area-type-table/<version>/[build|src] respectively, so they are published (as described above) to the CF website.

The CF Standardized Standardized Region Names vocabulary and CF Area Types vocabulary
on the NERC Vocabulary Server (NVS)
are updated at the same time the respective tables are updated on the CF website. This is done by
manually editing the vocabulary lists using the NVS2 editor.

There is potential for bringing the editing process for the CF Standardized Region List and Area Type Table into the CEDA vocabulary editor as is done for standard names. This would require further development of the editor code.

Cheers,
Alison

[cofinoa]

@ethanrd

I think we should move forward to this.

I have made some minor review, but still needs to improve some parts.

[feggleton]

This needs changing since vocabularies repo was introduced

[feggleton]

and @efisher008

[feggleton]

another change to Vocab repo or GitHub Discussions.

[feggleton]

Once Alison's extra text has been added I think this should be good from Vocab perspective.

[ethanrd]

I create an issue (#548) for discussion, agreement, and decision on the proposed changes given in this PR.
Further discussion should be done in that issue.

[cofinoa]

I think this is important to complete.

@ethanrd how can we move this forward?

[ethanrd]

@cofinoa - I agree, it would be good to get this added.

I think pinging the info-mgmt team in issue #548 and asking for review of this PR would be a good first step.