#164: Simple Geometries in CF
-----------------------------+------------------------------
Reporter: whiteaker | Owner: cf-conventions@…
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: medium | Milestone:
Component: cf-conventions | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords: geometry
-----------------------------+------------------------------
Comment (by davidhassell):
Hello,
As far as I can tell, the only conceptual outstanding issue with this
ticket is whether multi- and single-part geometry types should be combined
into a single type - i.e. all geometries could be "multi", with the
current "single" instances being a special case of multi. This is
discussed here:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-
conventions/pull/115/files/5f8c0859b7158fd3ebe94a898bbd2837233a22a3#r122266537
I think that the arguments presented against a sole type are reduced
interoperability and increased software complexity. The argument for is
reduced conventions complexity (although Chris Little might want to add to
this?).
Related to this single/multi issue is that the proposal currently allows
different cells to have different geometry types. Is this actively
desired? or required? Is there a case for insisting that all cells have
the same type, for simplicity? I would have thought that we do not need to
constrain the proposal in this way, but it's worth mentioning to see what
others think.
A minor point: A table defining each of the geometry types would be useful
- it seems that currently they are introduced with the assumption that
you arlready know what they are.
All the best,
David
--
Ticket URL: <https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/164#comment:3>
CF Metadata <http://cf-convention.github.io/>
CF Metadata
