#151: Clarification of use of standard region names in "region" variables.
-----------------------------+------------------------------
Reporter: martin.juckes | Owner: cf-conventions@…
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: medium | Milestone:
Component: cf-conventions | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
-----------------------------+------------------------------
Comment (by martin.juckes):
Dear Jonathan,
thanks .. I've added your generalisation and reworded the suggested
decsription for `region` to match your wording for `area_type`.
I've also modified `basin` in the example to be a lat/lon field, following
a comment from Karl: in CMIP5 and CMIP6 `basin(basin)` is a character
array used as a dimension, while `basin(lat, lon)` is an integer array.
Aligning the example cleanly with CMIP usage should make it clearer.
On the suggested Appendix: this could be separated off, as the other
modifications don't rely on it and, as you say, it would make sense to
make a complete list of relevant rules before adding it. I included it
because I have the impression that rules which are only recorded in CF
standard name descriptions are not picked up in the conformance document
or the checker. The suggested Appendix may not be the best way of
addressing this problem, but I think it is worth having a paragraph in the
convention text about constraints which are expressed in the standard name
descriptions. It may be enough to ensure that there are explicit examples
for each type of constraint (such as the one proposed above) with relevant
standard names listed. A sentence could also be appended to the paragraph
about '''description''' in section 3.3: ''The description may define rules
on the variable type and attributes (see for example section 6.1.1) which
must be complied with by any variable carrying that standard name.''
Regards,
Martin
--
Ticket URL: <http://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/151#comment:3>
CF Metadata <http://cf-convention.github.io/>
CF Metadata
