On 3/26/12 1:35 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
...
Regarding Nan's point, I would say that we do want CF to be inclusive. It
would be a mistake to impose irrelevant requirements that deterred people
from using the convention. In the case you mention, the chapter 9 convention
for profiles wouldn't allow you to have missing data in Z; it permits missing
data in coordinates only where the data is also missing.
I suppose that the pressure information is actually data in the raw obs
dataset. It would be legal to keep it in the file but not identify it as an
auxiliary coordinate variable (in the coordinates attribute). Then it would
be fine to having missing data in it. Would that be significantly less
convenient? Just a thought.
...
I don't think it is a good option to not allow a variable that
IS a coordinate to be labeled as a coordinate, if there are some
values missing.
It would be more than inconvenient; it would come close
to rendering the data meaningless. It seems to me to be
preferable to allow fill values in a coordinate variable (at
least in an auxiliary coordinate) - otherwise there is no standard
way to that I know of to indicate the depth of the measurements.
Not a good trade off, unless I'm missing something.
Thanks - Nan
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
