Jonathan, +1 on your idea of only identifying variables as aux coordinate variables once they have valid values at valid data locations.
-Rich On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Jim > > We are discussing auxiliary coordinate variables. They do not have to be > 1D or monotonic. Those requirements apply to coordinate variables in the > Unidata sense. CF distinguishes these two concepts in Sect 1.2. > >> The point is, the information in the variable *is* coordinate information, > > I would say, if it's missing, it's not information. > >> What if we say something along the lines of, "Applications should treat the >> data as missing where the auxiliary coordinates are missing when plotting >> data."? Would that resolve the problem? > > Plotting is not the only thing that an application might wish to use it for. > If we said, more generally, "Applications should treat the data as missing for > all purposes where the aux coord variables are missing", it would be almost > the same as not allowing missing data in aux coord vars, since there would be > no point in providing a data value if it was not permitted to use it. > > Although I am arguing one side, I could be convinced either way. But it does > feel unsafe to me at present. > > Cheers > > Jonathan > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata -- Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229 USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd. Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598 _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
