Dear Egil and Heiko Both of your discussions are somewhat related to CF trac ticket 27 https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/27
In the latter part of that, there is generally agreement that we should allow other conventions to provide attributes which are labelled with a prefix, as Heiko suggests for including a discovery metadata convention. There seems to be no problem with that, so long as the other convention is not providing the same kind of metadata as CF, so there will not be any contradiction. There has been other discussion recently on this email list concerning the issue of naming other conventions in the Conventions attribute. I don't think the original intention was to exclude that possibility. It's just not recognised in the CF standard and it should be. However, no-one's had time propose an amendment. Personally, I think it's OK so long as the extra conventions accept all of CF, and just add more conventions which do not conflict. If they overlap, this has to be thought about carefully, and in that case I would say that the CF standard would have to be amended to describe how the overlaps should be resolved. Perhaps you'd like to have a look at and contribute to trac ticket 27. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
