Hi Glenn,
My reading of the conformance document (as well as the conventions
document) is that standard_name is optional (but either standard_name or
long_name is recommended).
Here's the relevant section from the conformance document:
3 Description of the Data
*Recommendations:
*
* All variables should use either the long_name or the standard_name
attributes to describe their contents. Exceptions are boundary and
climatology variables.
I agree with Nan, that it is essential that variables without standard
names be allowed.
regards,
Karl
On 5/27/11 7:34 AM, Nan Galbraith wrote:
Hi Glenn -
Given that this would greatly undermine the purpose of the CF Convention,
On the contrary, it's very important that variables without standard
names be allowed in CF files.
In OceanSITES, we use this "feature" of the convention to
allow users to include instrument-specific and provenance-related
variables. These are typically variables that do not need to be
discoverable, and often don't need to be understood outside the
community in which the data is generated. We require standard
names for "scientific observables" but encourage people to include
other variables that help describe the data collection, quality, and
processing of those observations.
To require standard names for all variables would make CF untenable,
and would drown this list in requests for new names. Or worse, it would
encourage data providers to omit key metadata that's best expressed
as a variable in NetCDF.
Regards -
Nan Galbraith
On 5/27/11 7:25 AM, Comiskey, Glenn wrote:
Hi,
I note a discrepency between the CF document and the CF conformance
requirements and recommendations document, for all versions v1.0 thru
v1.5, in that the CF conformance requirements and recommendations
document states that the standard_name attribute is a requirement,
while the CF document details standard_name as "an optional mechanism"
for describing the data being represented. The CF conformance
requirements and recommendations document clearly states that in the
event of "any discrepancies between the two, the conventions document
is the ultimate authority." This would seem to imply that
standard_name is in fact not a requirement for CF conformance.
Given that this would greatly undermine the purpose of the CF
Convention, i.e. "provide a definitive description of what the
data...represents", I am assuming that the authors of the CF
Convention intend for standard_name to be mandatory for CF
conformance. However, I am hoping if someone is able to definitively
state whether the standard_name attribute is a requirement or is
optional, i.e. recommended, but not obliqatory.
I dare say this matter has been raised before, but having only just
started working with metorological/oceonographic data sets I'm not
aware of what the accepted answer to my query is; and I haven't been
able to find anything in the archive relating to this matter.
Kind regards,
Glenn Comiskey
Data System Administrator
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[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
