Hi Bryan, I suspect it probably is becoming important for weather forecast output now.
At the Met Office, we're now generating 2km post-processed forecast data (from models running at up 1.5km resolution). At present, this is mainly shared internally (and with a small number of 'expert' customers) using bespoke data formats (which don't fully describe the CRS) . However, in future I'd expect to be sharing these data more widely, ideally using CF-netCDF (and GRIB2), and would feel more comfortable, it we could fully characterise CRS in use, to ensure appropriate use in combination with other data. But to echo your last comment, a CRS WKT enhancement should be optional, and not replace the current CF grid description information - we don't want to break existing client software, just allow a fuller description of the CRS where required. Regards, Bruce -- Bruce Wright Expert IT Analyst (Data Management) Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886481 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: bruce.wri...@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Bryan Lawrence Sent: 05 October 2011 12:52 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Question on WKT representation of CRS (Bentley,Philip) Hi Seth I haven't read all the threads ... but I strongly agree with your last paragraph! I have had many conversations with folks who think that adding datums will make data more usable to the impacts community, where datum errors can move things by o(10)s of km ... and my protestation that no one should interpret as physical any differences on those scales from a (climate) model (even one run at o(km) resolution if such exists) ... was simply ignored. The reality is exactly what you say, that level of specificity is simply inappropriate. I appreciate some of the arguments raised in the thread on storing lat/lon coordinates, about the need for the use of one in a GIS workflow - but frankly I think that's an issue about workflow metadata not source data metadata. As Balaji and others said, there might not even be *one* datum appropriate for GCM work ... Of course observational data may well be different, and I'm not sure about NWP ... especially mesoscale models. So by all means, facilitate the provision of this information, but don't make it compulsory ... and I think it would be with WKT? Cheers Bryan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata