Dear all CF has always disallowed non-numeric coordinate variables (to the best of my knowledge) so, as Martin says, no change is proposed in that respect. The position of the NUG is different perhaps because it doesn't have auxiliary coordinate variables. CF has string-valued auxiliary coordinate variables, as we all agree, and they should not have the name of (any of) their dimensions. Things could be done other ways, but I believe that's how they are in CF at present. Is there a reason why it needs to be changed, arising from use-cases? I think the essential distinction between a dimension coordinate variable and an auxiliary coordinate variable is that the former is inherently ordered by its coordinate values, while the latter is an unordered collection (which is given an order only by the dimension coordinate variable, if there is one). Of course you can choose to order an auxiliary coordinate variable by its values (if there is no dimension coordinate variable) or in any way you choose, but the order is not an inherent part of the metadata it conveys. Best wishes Jonathan
-- 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/174#issuecomment-598186270 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].
