> @stephenworsley @lbdreyer How would having the labels > 'aggregate_quality_flag' etc. as Standard Names rather than Standard Name > Modifiers (e.g. 'status_flag aggregate_quality_flag' affect the iris software > development project? What would your preference be?
The difference between adding the flags as standard name modifiers versus standard name modifiers, as an impact on Iris, would be minor. There is a slight preference for standard names. Standard names are provided in a [machine readable format](http://cfconventions.org/standard-names.html) so any updates are pulled through easily, whereas for standard name modifiers we maintain a copy of the C1 table, so any updates to that table require us to update Iris. > So, that leaves the possibilities 'aggregate_quality_flag' or 'status_flag > aggregate_quality_flag'. Looking at the project that linked with this thread > yesterday it can be seen that flags require specific handling code. The > obvious way to trigger this is to look for 'status_flag' in the Standard > Name. So I think 'status_flag aggregate_quality_flag' is the better way to go. I suspect we will write Iris such that it will detect whether or not something is a flag is by checking for the `flag_values`, `flag_masks` and `flag_meanings` attributes rather than using a standard_name. This will allow for users that may, for example, use a long_name rather than a standard_name. So `aggregate_quality_flag` as a standard_name sounds perfectly sensible from an Iris perspective. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/216#issuecomment-563306371 This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from [email protected], although if you do nothing, a subscription to the UCAR list will result in a subscription to this list. To unsubscribe from this list only, send a message to [email protected].
