Dear all @davidhassell makes a good point about the attributes. If UGRID is to be regarded as part of CF (whether within the document or as linked document with a consistent version) it would make sense for UGRID's attributes to be included in Appendix A, or listed in a separate Appendix (like the grid-mapping ones are) since they aren't general-purpose attributes. As David also said, its requirements should appear as a section of the CF conformance document. Also any important terms which it needs to define could be added to section 1.2, and throughout the CF document any relevant references to UGRID should be inserted. These things would naturally be done if the main UGRID description were included in the CF document, and would help with visibility and consistency to do them in any case. If UGRID isn't completely moved into the CF document as a new chapter, I think it would be worthwhile adding a subsection to describe it. That could be in section 1, like the subsection we have there about COARDS.
I agree with David that if the presence or function of UGRID variables can be identified by the presence of particular attributes, `cf_role` isn't needed. It's redundant and therefore could cause inconsistency. A possible approach would be to deprecate it, which means the CF checker (when made UGRID-aware) would emit a warning if `cf_role` was included in these roles. The checker should also give an error if `cf_role` is present and wrongly used - that would be a consistency rule that would appear in the conformance document. 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/153#issuecomment-703794183 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].
