Dear Chris > I really don't like storing info like this in an attribute -- I think it > should be another variable, instead. it is a bit tricky with "nested" data > like this, but yu can link variables together with something like: > > int SOMETHING(station); // number of polygons in each collection > SOMETHING:node_coordinates="lon lat"; > SOMETHING:geometry_type="multipolygon"; > SOMETHING:node_count="node_count_1" > int node_count_1(num_nodes); > > ... > data > node_count_1 = 4, 3, 3, 3, 5, 3, 3;
Yes, I thought of doing it that way too: that is, use a string attribute to name a vector integer variable, rather than using a vector integer attribute. This/your way is more consistent with CF in general, where we have few vector attributes, and none with variable dimension. So I actually prefer it. I didn't do it that way because I thought it looked simpler with an attribute. But I don't mind. > Thus I > > have combined the two variables I suggested last time (number_of_parts and > > number_of_nodes) into SOMETHING. > > > I think we should come up with a better name here -- it would help be parse > it anyway :-) Indeed. :-) SOMETHING is just the variable name, not the term for this kind of variable. It might be called a topology variable, for instance. Speaking of that, I wonder whether topology_type is a better name than geometry_type for the specification as points, lines or polygons. That is topological information. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
