Thanks, Ros. I had a feeling the CF checker was being precise, I just
couldn't figure out why it wasn't happy. Mystery solved!
Does anyone know if there is any reason why Appendix A limits comments
to non-coordinate variables? That seems ... unusual. I don't recall any
threads discussing this, but I might have missed it.
Is there a better way to describe how coordinate values were determined?
For
example, I'd really like to convey the fact that there are N meters of
assorted
hardware between an instrument and the surface, when the depth value is not
a measured variable, or that the X,Y values are not true points, when we
have
only the position of the anchor on a surface mooring. I'm also supplying a
watch circle radius, but that's not part of any standard.
Cheers - Nan
On 4/23/12 10:51 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Nan,
The CF checker is producing the INFO message because according to
Appendix A the "comment" attribute can be attached to either a
(G)lobal variable or a (D)ata variable containing non-coordinate data.
This is just an informational message alerting you to the fact that
you may be using the attribute incorrectly. As far as I am aware there
is nothing to stop you using the comment attribute on a coordinate
variable (hence the INFO message not WARNING or ERROR) - it just isn't
a standard use of it.
Regards,
Ros.
On Apr 23 2012, Nan Galbraith wrote:
Hi all -
I've got a question about the correct use of comments in CF.
In chapter 2 of the spec (actually, 2.6.2. Description of file
contents) the term comment is defined this way: "Miscellaneous
information about the data or methods used to produce it."
I'm using comments to describe some of my coordinate variables:
DEPTH:comment = "approximate instrument depth" ;
LATITUDE:comment = "surveyed anchor position" ;
LONGITUDE:comment = "surveyed anchor position" ;
This SEEMS like what this attribute is meant to do; it gives an idea
of the coordinates' accuracy, or lack thereof, which can't really
be quantified.
These produce a warning from the NCAS-CMS (NERC) CF checker:
' INFO: attribute 'comment' is being used in a non-standard way.'
Isn't this the correct use of the comment field? Is there some
prohibition
against this, or is there another use of the comment attribute, that
restricts its 'normal' use? I've pored over the spec, and can't figure
out why this could be considered 'non-standard'. Any ideas? Am
I missing something?
Thanks -
Nan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specailist *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 *
*******************************************************
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
