Dear Jonathan, > Do you think the standard name alone is sufficient? Proposing a new attribute > is more work than proposing a standard_name, since it means amending the CF > standard. I can see there could be value in a relative_to attribute, but it > might be an unnecessary complexity. I wonder what you and others think.
The standard name alone is sufficient for our case. I agree with you that we should not add unnecessary complexity to the CF standard. I think we will use the standard name 'time_offset'. Best regards, Maarten On 02/02/2011 05:15 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote: > Dear Maarten > > What you write about pixeltime as an aux coord var (y,x) and your ncdump look > sensible to me. I think that's all fine. > >> The standard_name time_offset (s) seems good to me. In the long name we >> can add an explanation that this variable deals with the time offset for >> each pixel. > > OK. So that is a definite proposal for a new standard name. > > Do you think the standard name alone is sufficient? Proposing a new attribute > is more work than proposing a standard_name, since it means amending the CF > standard. I can see there could be value in a relative_to attribute, but it > might be an unnecessary complexity. I wonder what you and others think. > > Best wishes > > Jonathan > -- Maarten Plieger KNMI, R&D Information and Observation Technology, De Bilt (t) +31 30 2206330 _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
