#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 jonathan):
Dear Martin
Thanks very much. Seeing the change you have made for consistency with
CMIP, I realise that this new text is probably not in the right place in
the document. Sorry I didn't realise this before. Sect 6 is about
coordinates. When basin is an auxiliary ''coordinate'' variable, we don't
need the flag methods; there is a single dimension with basin names as
labels. The example and your concern is about the case when a ''data''
variable contains regions or area_types. Therefore I would now suggest
that the new text and the example should be at the end of Sect 5.5
instead, or should form a new short Sect 8.3 about string-valued data
variables (since this mechanism is a kind of packing), or maybe there's a
better place for them - but probably not in Sect 6. What do you think?
I appreciate your point about checking of constraints on data variables
with particular standard names. I agree it would be good to note this in
Sect 3.3, and a corresponding sentence could be inserted in the
conformance document for Sect 3.3. I think that would be a better way than
splitting Appendix B. I don't know actually what the cf-checker currently
does about this or what it could do, but it would be useful to make the
point explicitly.
Best wishes
Jonathan
--
Ticket URL: <http://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/151#comment:4>
CF Metadata <http://cf-convention.github.io/>
CF Metadata
