We may be solving a problem here before it arises. From this arises the danger that we'll solve a problem that won't arise, or that we'll solve it in a way that's not as useful as it could be!
It seems that computational precision is neither sufficient to describe the actual target, which is the positional error, nor is it necessary when considered in light of the rest of the Conventions, which also do not give such low-level details about numerical reconstruction - although this might be relevant for geophysical variables and the like! I propose therefore leaving it off. Data producers do have this field: `comment : Miscellaneous information about the data or methods used to produce it.` @AndersMS et al. FYI -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/327*issuecomment-874741086__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!lBKAneM_G9Y15zH8T37BTqvcYwVPIVzO7vA6qyv7cSdAjRTMBEAgnG8UB-ZKUsw6Ly89fTg-WWU$ 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].
