This message came from the CF Trac system. Do not reply. Instead, enter your
comments in the CF Trac system at http://kitt.llnl.gov/trac/.
#113: Review of CF feature types
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mgschultz | Owner: cf-conventions@…
Type: | Status: new
enhancement | Milestone:
Priority: medium | Version:
Component: cf- | Keywords: featureType, Grid, Point,
conventions | TimeSeries, Profile
Resolution: |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
\
\
\
\
\
\
Comment (by biard):
Martin,
I checked out the list of definitions, and they look good. But. (You knew
there had to be a but, right?) Aren't you being overly restrictive by
explicitly calling out latitude and longitude instead of more generalized
X and Y, especially in the coverage type names? I'm coming from the
satellite and aerial sensor community, where the natural coordinates may
not be latitude and longitude, but this is also a concern for polar grids,
where using latitude and longitude can become problematic and a polar
stereographic coordinate system is the more natural fit. That's the only
issue I see, and perhaps in your specific domain it's not an issue, but I
feel like your work would be more generally applicable if your namings
were less tightly tied to lat and lon.
Grace and peace,
Jim
\
\
\
--
Ticket URL: <http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/113#comment:13>
CF Metadata <http://cf-convention.github.io/>
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.
