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 mgschultz):
Replying to [comment:15 graybeal]:
Dear John,
thanks for your message and sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I
admit that I had to read this twice to see the value of your comments ;-)
I have now updated the wiki page to take some of your comments and
concerns into account. I am not really willing to exchange the figure for
now, though - maybe some imagination should be left to the reader? I
agree with most of your statements and particularly liked the "correction"
(clarification?) of "point_timeseries_collection" versus
"point_collection_timeseries". This tiny but important distinction had
escaped my notice.
Concerning your meta-point about the use or application of this model, I
would still argue that it may be useful beyond the specific implementation
in JOIN - even though I consent that here or there one may want to phrase
things in a somewhat more general way, especially concerning the
longitude/latitude coordinates. Nevertheless, I believe it is an important
step from a completely abstract model to a model that can actually be
implemented in practice. Obviously, there are a myriad of other
possibilities of x, y, z, t, i coordinates possible in theory - but I
believe it is useful to map those which actually occur in practice (this
has always been a good CF principle) to a set of named coverage types.
What has been in CF so far has been rather incomplete I would argue (and
this was the starting point of this track ticket). I would even go as far
as to suggest that the current CF types should be renamed according to
this new scheme -- in this context one should of course attempt a mapping.
Happy to hear more critical comments,
best regards,
Martin
\
\
\
--
Ticket URL: <http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/113#comment:17>
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.
