Dear all,
I agree that in cases where bounds are appropriate, they should always
be included. I'm not sure, however, how the checker would know in which
cases they should be included.
So, we'll have to be careful in how we word the recommendation, and
perhaps the checker won't be able to raise a warning when they aren't.
regards,
Karl
On 8/11/11 11:33 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Karl
I agree with Karl about this:
I'm not sure why we should assume anything if the bounds are
missing. Making an assumption would be valuable if the absence of
bounds invariably implied a rule (e.g., centers half-way between
bounds), but otherwise the assumption could be wrong, so what have
we gained?
...
It might especially be difficult to decide where to place the bounds
in the case of unevenly spaced grid-points.
While I agree we should not assume a default for missing bounds, I think it
would be good to recommend that bounds should be included. At present we do
not do this. If we made it a recommendation (in section 5.1), the CF_checker
would give a warning if there were no bounds.
Cheers
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
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
