@davidhassell, please consider that bounds variables are unique in relation to ordinary data variables, thus the analogy to instruments with equivalent unit strings is not a very good comparison. A bounds variable should be nothing more than a close extension of the parent coordinate variable. Its only purpose is to provide explicit cell boundary values for each coordinate value.
A better analogy would be to actual_range attributes. By their structure alone, these can not have their own independent interpretive attributes, and always inherit from the parent. I see bounds variables in the same light. IMO the practice of varying attribute string values on bounds should be discouraged or prohibited, thus I favor the original intent to prohibit non-exact string values. The message to dataset creators should be simply, "Don't do this." -- 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/265#issuecomment-630974973 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.
