Hi Chris:
Im not positive I understand the question but Ill try to answer anyway:
Profiles are allowed to specify time along the vertical dimension. They
must have a single lat/lon coordinate associated with the entire
profile, but this could be a nominal value for the purpose of searching,
and theres no problem adding lat/lon coordinates at each vertical point,
which specialized software knows about.
If the horiz drift is truly significant, probably best to make it into a
trajectory. The categories are a bit blurry, as you see.
Regards,
John
Little, Chris wrote:
Hello John,
Just a minor, naive question about this proposal. I may have
misunderstood or missed something by not being a NetCDF user.
How do your structures handle profiles that are really near vertical
trajectories? Many atmospheric ascents/profiles are now being used
with explicit time, vertical and horizontal coordinates, as the extent
of the profile (>10km vertically, ~2 hours, ~ 100km horizontally) is
now significant compared to current models. I expect the same argument
could be made for some oceanographic profiles.
If my question is sensible, please reply via the newsgroups if you wish.
Best wishes, Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*
cf-netcdf-1.0.swg-bounces+chris.little=metoffice.gov...@lists.opengeospatial.org
[mailto:cf-netcdf-1.0.swg-bounces+chris.little=metoffice.gov...@lists.opengeospatial.org]
*On Behalf Of *Ben Domenico
*Sent:* 09 November 2009 15:59
*To:* CF-netCDF SWG
*Subject:* [CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg] Fwd: [CF-metadata] CF point
observationConventions ready for review
Hello,
The message below from John Caron points to a revised version of the
proposed CF Conventions for point observations. Note that a
preliminary implementation has been developed.
-- Ben
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *John Caron* <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Subject: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
I have complete a new version of the CF point observation Conventions at:
https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/PointObservationConventions
Discussion is at:
https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/37
I have incorporated various feedback from the past year, and made a
preliminary implementation to be sure that a generic application can
distinguish the various cases without human intervention.
I have tried to simplify, esp in the station profile and section
feature types, where the combinations of options got too complex. The
document is now explicit about all possible representations. The use
of missing values is also clarified.
While the document is rather long, if you manage to wade through it
you'll see that the patterns of use keep repeating and are mostly
regular. Showing full examples I think is the best way to prevent
misunderstandings.
I did make enough changes that anyone who wrote files using the
previous version should check to see whats changed. Apologies for that.
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
