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/.
#104: Clarify the interpretation of scalar coordinate variables -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: jonathan | Owner: [email protected] Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: medium | Milestone: Component: cf-conventions | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Comment (by davidhassell): Replying to [comment:31 markh]: Dear Mark, > In my view this approach makes the description of discrete sampling geometries more complex, but whatever my view, I think the implications should be clearly documented as part of this ticket. I don't think, at the moment, that the interpretation of scalar coordinate variables in Section 9 will be different under what Jonathan and I are proposing. The examples [http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/documents/cf-conventions/1.6/cf- conventions.html#Example%20H.2.3.1 H.4], H.5 and H.9, for example, are fine for me under our proposal. Is it a problem, in these examples, that `time`, `lat`, `lon` (and `alt`) are independent? I would expect it, I think. One reason for this is, for example, that given enough of these files for different locations, I'd want to try and stitch them together to make a data variable with indpendent `lat` and `lon` dimensions which are both of size greater than 1. I suspect, however, that you have spent more time than me considering this issue, so it would be helpful if you could expand on any implications you think there may be. Many thanks and all the best, David -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/104#comment:32> 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.
