John, Thanks - you answered my concerns perfectly - nominal location and nominal time, with more specific values within the data if applicable.
Chris -----Original Message----- From: John Caron [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 November 2009 18:13 To: Little, Chris Cc: Tandy, Jeremy; [email protected] Subject: Re: [CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg] Fwd: [CF-metadata] CF point observationConventions ready for review 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.opengeos > patial.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
