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/.
#107: CF Data Model 1.7 -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: markh | Owner: [email protected] Type: task | Status: new Priority: medium | Milestone: Component: cf-conventions | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Comment (by jonathan): Dear Mark I am sorry if I appear to be awkward, but having compared our versions I prefer ours to yours in most respects. These are the differences: * You prefer "!CellMeasure" to "cell measure construct". Maybe "construct" isn't the best word, but we've used it in all the previously agreed text. I appreciate that your nomenclature would be more compact, but we should be consistent throughout the document. Could we postpone this until we've agreed all the sections? * Layout. I formatted the text in the same way as the text we have already agreed. Your style is different. I think we ought to return to the question of form when we've finished the contents. * I gave just one example of the measure property and units, whereas you have listed the allowed values. I think that for the data model we do not need to be exhaustive, because the allowed values are a matter for vocabulary; they don't affect the concept. Actually, I would rather remove the single example than list all possibilities in the data model document! * Purpose of cell measures. I agree we need this. It's not in my version because I moved it to the [https://cf- pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/Ticket107Text9Nov13From95 Field part of the document]. That's because you suggested, and we agreed, that it was better in the case of coordinates to put the description of purpose at the level of the Field itself. Hence for consistency I did the same for all the other components of the Field. My proposed text is "A cell measure construct provides information about the size or shape of the cells defined by an ordered list of one or more domain axes of the field." * I say "contain", you say "define". This is not a big difference, but we say "contain" elsewhere. These are the components of the construct. * About the dimensions, I wrote, "[Its] shape is determined by the domain axes in the order listed, optionally omitting any domain axes of size one. ... It is assumed that the metric does not depend on any of the domain axes of the field which are not specified, along which the values are implicitly propagated," and you wrote, "[Its] shape is consistent with the domain axes mediating the references from the containing Field." To my mind, your version is less explicit and less clear. I think we could omit "optionally omitting ... size one" from my version, because I suppose a dependence on a size-one dimension is in effect not a dependence, since there is no variation, so it's covered by the sentence about implicit propagation. That sentence is important. It is not required that a cell measures variable has all the dimensions of the data variable. * I don't think the point about controlled vocabularies is needed here. However, we could mention that when we deal with properties. * You have omitted the final part, which relates to the data model to CF-netCDF files. I think the user is likely to find that information helpful, so I feel that we should keep it. Cheers Jonathan -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/107#comment:5> 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.
