On 4/2/2012 4:52 AM, Jim Biard wrote:
I like Jonathan's suggestion.
Fine w/ me.
- Steve
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Gregory
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear all
John Caron proposed
> "Applications should treat the data as missing where the
auxiliary coordinates are missing"
and Steve proposed (an hour later, I think)
"Application writers should be aware that under some (rare)
circumstances data auxiliary coordinate values may be missing, while
other parameters at the corresponding indices remain valid. While
special purpose applications may be able to glean useful information
at these indices, most applications will want to regard data as
missing where the auxiliary coordinates are missing "
I could agree to either of these. I prefer John's, because it is
simpler, but
it's more severe than Steve's. A compromise might be possible, e.g.
Generic applications should treat the data as missing where any
auxiliary
coordinate variables have missing values; special-purpose
applications might
be able to make use of the data.
Any good?
Cheers
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Jim Biard
Research Scholar
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites
Remote Sensing and Applications Division
National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801-5001
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
828-271-4900
_______________________________________________
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
