Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your comments.

> In Appendix I (the data model), you describe the new CF-netCDF element as 
> "Domain(s) with cell connectivity" and the new CF construct as "Connectivity 
> of domain cells". I wonder if these should be the same.

Good point, In this case I think they should different, though. 

For instance, in the first new example in the new section 5.9 "Mesh Topology 
Variables" (which is adapted from 
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://ugrid-conventions.github.io/ugrid-conventions/*2d-triangular-mesh-topology__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!i3j8zHRk_Fphfr-WluLHOEojaVLHa0uyJCSzU52a9pXQBkO_wevMDymzyrbrREaOM-U9UEXFfeo$
 ) , the mesh topology variable `Mesh2` contains  nodes, edges and faces, each 
of which corresponds to a self-contained CF data model domain construct. I.e. 
this mesh topology variable represents three domains (in the data model sense 
of "domain"):

![image](https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/8126576/150507209-3f4ceb2f-a76f-4cc7-99a9-9fa85caed283.png__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!i3j8zHRk_Fphfr-WluLHOEojaVLHa0uyJCSzU52a9pXQBkO_wevMDymzyrbrREaOM-U9cXv7eeE$
 )

(one domain for the 2 triangular faces, one for the 5 edges, and one for the 4 
nodes.)

By contrast, in the data model we still do not formally recognise the 
_inter_-domain connectivity (e.g. the relationship between edges and faces; or 
the relationship between stagger locations on an Arakawa grid), but the 
existing domain construct does require the new domain topology construct 
component to represent the _intra_-domain connectivity required by UGRID.

I feel that this distinction should be better illuminated in the appendix I 
text  ... I'll see how I can work that in.

> In ch01 there is an accidental "accidential".

Fixed (I'll push it up with the appendix I changes discussed above).

> I note that many of the changes in 
> https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-convention.github.io/pull/210/files__;!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!i3j8zHRk_Fphfr-WluLHOEojaVLHa0uyJCSzU52a9pXQBkO_wevMDymzyrbrREaOM-U9DFg5Bug$
>   are concerned with respelling github as GitHub. It's fine to put that 
> right. In the unlikely event that this PR doesn't get accepted, we should 
> remember to do that anyway.

You're quite right. (I shouldn't really do that, but I got carried away during 
a spell check :))

----
By the way, I very recently found out that GitHub now has nice image comparison 
feature when you do a "rich diff" on an image file, that includes side by side, 
and overlayed views (e.g. 
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/353/files?short_path=5a70e4b*diff-5a70e4b347e2935d49b12cfaff78556fb70319f62762e966b1c82042f022d463__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!i3j8zHRk_Fphfr-WluLHOEojaVLHa0uyJCSzU52a9pXQBkO_wevMDymzyrbrREaOM-U9bNStxFc$
  and 
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/353/files?short_path=e4e016c*diff-e4e016c9bc64bd9cea792809a49d188836d6050352f0c24da156b896f8a3b6cf__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!i3j8zHRk_Fphfr-WluLHOEojaVLHa0uyJCSzU52a9pXQBkO_wevMDymzyrbrREaOM-U9w0HmcLo$
 ).

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/153*issuecomment-1018360298__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!i3j8zHRk_Fphfr-WluLHOEojaVLHa0uyJCSzU52a9pXQBkO_wevMDymzyrbrREaOM-U9h1AGcYs$
 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/153/[email protected]>
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].

Reply via email to