I'm not contributing much to this because GitHub is inexplicably not sending me the contributions to this issue. It may have decided for itself that it's better for all if I'm kept in the dark!
I feel that the best solution for this would be for CF to maintain a document which describes the mapping between CF metadata and WKT, and for conformance to this mapping to be checked by the CF-checker. In that way a user could be reasonably confident of getting the same result by reading either of them, and errors would be identified. I think we already have some documents somewhere that are relevant (prepared years ago by Etienne Tourigny). This would be a non-trivial piece of work but until it is done I don't think we can really know what we are missing in the CF attributes what WKT can describe and needs to be included in use cases of CF datasets. It could be that CF `grid_mapping` attributes could eventually be replaced by WKT, as Jim would prefer, but I suspect that there is overlap with other parts of the CF data model, which would make this hard. It's certainly worth considering, but I think that writing down the mapping is a necessary piece of evidence in deciding about that and would therefore be a useful first step. -- 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/222#issuecomment-575565767 This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from cf-metad...@cgd.ucar.edu, 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 cf-metadata-unsubscribe-requ...@listserv.llnl.gov.
