Hi.
The issue you are raising regarding coordinate systems and the grid_mapping
attribute is something I have been wondering about lately. Doesn't the
grid_mapping attribute more properly reside on the coordinate (or auxiliary
coordinate) variable? Strictly speaking, the data values don't
Dear Randy
I agree with what you write. You could list the alternative sets of three
coordinates each all as auxiliary coord vars, and distinguish them with
standard_names; presumably you would want to propose some new standard_names.
That would be fine and quite simple to do.
In addition, you
Hi.
The new grid_mapping scheme looks great! It accomplishes, in a more backward
compatible way, most of the things that I was suggesting.
Regarding Jonathan's reply to my previous comment:
If I read a temperature using a thermometer, the value does not have a
geographic coordinate system
Jonathan,
That sounds great! I was thinking there needed to be some way to capture the
42% figure.
So, to sum up, the standard name and definition would be:
surface_snow_cover_binary_mask: The value is 1 where the snow cover area
fraction is greater than a threshold, and 0 elsewhere. The
Dear All,
It's becoming clear that we need a Standard Name component to cover boolean
values whose trigger point may then be specified elsewhere as Jonathan stated.
In the biological domain, the syntax 'presence_of_x' where x is a taxon name is
often used. Could this be adopted giving the
Suggestion 'presence_of_surface_snow' should have been
'presence_of_surface_snow_cover' to maintain consistency
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Lowry, Roy K.
[r...@bodc.ac.uk]
Sent: 05 September 2012 19:49
To: Ute
Ute,
It is a good concept. As best as I understand it (I'm still learning), the
existing grammar for standard names doesn't allow a qualifier of this sort.
Qualifiers are not allowed to change the units of a quantity, for one thing,
and a binary mask qualifier doesn't fit into any of the
