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/.
#108: Defining a domain for a cell_method
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: markh | Owner: cf-conventi...@lists.llnl.gov
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: medium | Milestone:
Component: cf-conventions | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Comment (by markh):
Replying to [comment:3 jonathan]:
> Dear Mark
>
> I'd like to put forward a different argument in support of your
preference, namely that if we relied on the dimension name alone it would
have to be assumed that all variables with that dimension were auxiliaries
of the field before collapse. That is not necessary so; some such
variables might be irrelevant.
I agree, this risks problems.
> Looking at the issue that way, it now seems to me is that what we need
to record is the coordinates and auxiliary coordinates of the field before
collapse. This information is more complete than you can record with
`interval`.
> Here's a proposal for the new para along these lines:
>
> The original domain of the variable before the statistical operation
was applied can be described completely using "`dimension:` ''dimname''
[''dimname'' ...]" and `coordinates:` ''varname'' [''varname'' ...]". The
''dimname''s are the names of the netCDF dimensions for the affected axes
in the original domain. This syntax implies that any 1D variable whose
name is ''dimname'' is a coordinate variable of the original domain. The
''varname''s are the names of auxiliary coordinate variables for the
affected axes in the original domain. Before the statistical operation was
carried out, these variables would have been named by the `coordinates`
attribute of the original data variable.
This seems significantly more complex than the use of ancillary variables
I have proposed. I do not yet see where it adds particular extra value.
Using ancillary variables makes it a conscious choice which ex-coordinate
variables and gives access to the dimensions, vis the ancillary variable.
I think that I find the ancillary approach neater than the dimname and
varname you have suggested as an alternative.
I would be wary of adopting this alternative as it does not seem to me to
add value, but it does add complexity.
Are there factors I am missing?
Would [wiki:aggregateExampleMH my example] benefit from the description of
dimname and varname instead?
mark
--
Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/108#comment:4>
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
"majord...@lists.llnl.gov" with "unsubscribe cf-metadata" in the body of your
message.
