Dear @larsbarring Yes, I take the point, which is also partly what I replied to @jonathanlilly. I'd prefer to say something more general than just referring to `cell_methods`. Would this be OK:
> For **many** applications it **is** desirable to have a more definitive > description of the quantity, which **allows** users of data from different > sources (some of which might be models and others observational) to determine > whether quantities are in fact comparable. For this reason **each variable > may optionally be given a "standard name", whose meaning is defined by this > convention. There may be several variables in a dataset with any given > standard name, and these may be distinguished by other metadata, such as > coordinates (Section 4) and `cell_methods` (Section 7.3).** Jonathan -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/366*issuecomment-1125867672__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!ilxpUKXM3RCyfy2mfmdhYZujvTWEAklDG6ny3NqtJjBtVV8u8zj6I5KyZ3oShvuh7P8fz7D5j9Q$ You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/366/1125867...@github.com> 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.
