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 markh): Replying to [comment:5 jonathan]: thank you for the comments, responses to some of them are here: > * I say "contain", you say "define". This is not a big difference, but we say "contain" elsewhere. These are the components of the construct. This makes sense, I have updated the [wiki:markhDataModelDrafting draft] accordingly. > * 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! > * I don't think the point about controlled vocabularies is needed here. However, we could mention that when we deal with properties. I wonder if these are two sides of the same coin. If we have a 'Properties' section of the model with reference to appropriate controlled vocabularies, we could capture all of the information about controlled vocabularies and scope there. I think we must be exhaustive somewhere, defining how to comprehend the correct vocabulary: we have to define what is allowed. I am content to put this information under a Properties section, rather than in this section, if that is preferred. I suggest we get onto Properties next, to get the referencing and scope in shape. > * 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. I understand. The first sentence seems the most relevant so I have added this to the [wiki:markhDataModelDrafting draft]; does the second sentence really add value here? I am not so sure. to be continued... mark -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/107#comment:6> 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.
