On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
> wrote:

> I didn't suggest parsing attribute strings. The same numbers that Ben
> would put
> in his x and y auxiliary coordinate variables for a single polygon can
> appear
> in coordinate bounds variables according to the existing convention.

OK then, sorry for the confusion, probably me reading it too fast...

OK. I didn't investigate this, but it would be good to know about it. If
> ugrid can do something like this, but not all of it, maybe ugrid could be
> extended.


> If ugrid seems too complicated for these cases, maybe a "light"
> version of ugrid could be proposed for them. I think we should avoid having
> two partially overlapping conventions.

I agree -- but it seem like these are really different use cases to me --
sure there are similarities, but a different enough focus that a different
standard may make sense -- though hopefully UGRID can inform the "new" one,
so as to not have different way to accomplish the parts that are the same.

CF2 is not well-defined.

I thought it wasn't defined at all. But I think we all share your concerns
about that.



Christopher Barker, Ph.D.

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

CF-metadata mailing list

Reply via email to