On 10/22/2010 5:01 PM, Jeff deLaBeaujardiere wrote:
Hello-
I don't think I have any standing to vote on CF matters, but I just
wanted to say that I quite agree with Steve Hankin's viewpoint. I
personally like ISO8601 date/time strings for text display, but agree
that under-the-hood encodings such as CF "days since T" or Unix
"seconds since the Epoch" are ideal.
Hi Jeff,
Everybody has standing on CF discussions. Thanks for your contributions
here. (Especially since you agreed with me! ;-) ) Formal votes are
supposed to occur only in cases of deadlock -- and very rarely happen.
- Steve
When CF says "days since T" I feel that "T" should be expressed in
ISO8601 (it often is; I don't know if that's a requirement).
Regarding the precision or accuracy of time, perhaps you already know
that ISO8601 provides a means of expressing a time interval. This
could be the syntax used to express temporal uncertainty in metadata.
The syntax is
PyYmMdDThHmMsS
where:
P stands for 'period';
T separates date from time components (if any);
Y, M, D, H, M, S are suffixes meaning Years, Months, &c
(the second M(inutes) can only occur after T so it is
distinguishable from M[onths]);
y, m, d, h, m, are integers;
s is integer or real;
unneeded components can be omitted.
Example: P7DT6H30M means an interval of 7 days, 6 hours, 30 minutes.
-Jeff DLB
Steve Hankin wrote:
Since this email thread already contains an element of informal
voting I'll cast my ballot: CF is a better standard *WITHOUT
*admitting ISO date strings as an encoding for time coordinates.
[...]
None of this is a comment on the utility of ISO date/time strings as
metadata. There are appropriate uses of ISO date/time strings in CF
as non-coordinate variables and attributes. The NO vote is in regard
to their use as CF coordinates.
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
