This message came from the CF Trac system. Do not reply. Instead, enter your comments in the CF Trac system at https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/.
#74: Allow sharing of ancillary variables among multiple data variables ---------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: [email protected] | Owner: [email protected] Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: medium | Milestone: Component: cf-conventions | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: "ancillary data" "standard name modifiers" ---------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Comment (by [email protected]): Jim: Thanks for the inputs. Let me first address the counter-proposal. There is no precedence (yet) for reserved keywords in the list of standard_names. Given the fact that there is a less disruptive option that leverages the thinking behind the existing convention, I suspect the message board and committee would find this option less appealing. As far as your rewording of the existing proposal, I can see that your intent is to make the language more precise to avoid confusion. The fact that you got confused means that there is some likelihood that others will as well. I think your language could be further improved to make it clear that the current proposal does not apply to all of the standard name modifiers in Appendix C. In addition, I think that placing this rewording near the end of paragraph 3.3 increases the likelihood that it will be missed. As a result, here is the revised proposal: Right after this existing statement of: "A standard name is associated with a variable via the attribute standard_name which takes a string value comprised of a standard name optionally followed by one or more blanks and a standard name modifier (a string value from Appendix C, Standard Name Modifiers)." Include the following statement in the same paragraph: "In the case where more than one data variable, each with a standard name, references an ancillary data variable (see Section 3.4, “Ancillary Data”) for the same reason (e.g. status_flag), the standard_name attribute for the ancillary data variable is composed of a blank-separated list of each unique standard name followed by one or more blanks and a standard name modifier." The ambiguity that remains in the statement (i.e. the case where multiple data variables referencing the ancillary data variable have the same standard_name) is moot. As a result, there is no need to further increase the complexity of the statement to resolve it. Does this pass muster with the convetions committee ? very respectfully, randy -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/74#comment:22> CF Metadata <http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/> CF Metadata This message came from the CF Trac system. To unsubscribe, without unsubscribing to the regular cf-metadata list, send a message to "[email protected]" with "unsubscribe cf-metadata" in the body of your message.
