Dear all
Referring to Mike's comment. I agree that the ancillary_variables attribute
indicates that the status_flag variable is associated with its data variable,
and that alone identifies it to some extent, but (a) it doesn't specifically
indicate its purpose, since there could be more than one
Dear all,
I have a similar issue for my sea ice motion product, stored in netCDF. It is
based on satellite data, but I do not think it really matters for the
discussion.
Like winds, currents, and other 2D vector quantity, my ice drift dataset is
made of 2 variables. Be it distance/bearing,
Hello,
I vote for solution #1. Most elegant in my mind if the CF convention for
attribute standard_name can be tweaked to accommodate multiple standard names
(.e.g., such as a space separated list l ?)
regards,
On Nov 2, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Thomas et al.
If
While the first solution is better in the case when several data variables have
the same status flag, the second solution is better when there are several
data variables each of which have a different status flag but same flag_values
and flag_meanings. Can't we have both the solutions?
Now I *think* I mostly understand the problem - thanks for the summary
explanation, Jonathan, and apologies for the earlier missing-the-point :)
However, I probably still need a bit more straightening out or have
missed the point again.. I'd be grateful to understand more about why
one needs a
On 02/11/11 20:20, Mike Grant wrote:
I'll put that in another email as this is already way too long and I
suspect it's unworkable ;)
Trying to address wanting different standard_names, shared or different
flag_meanings and shared or different flag data..
Extend the idea in Jonathan's #2
Hi all:
a recap ...
When Chris stated this morning:
I don't want to speak for Randy, but I know it is quite common in Level 2 data
from the Earth Observing System to have quality variables where there is a
one-to-one match at the pixel level between a given quality variable and 1 or
more
Hi all:
a recap ...
When Chris stated this morning:
I don't want to speak for Randy, but I know it is quite common in Level 2 data
from the Earth Observing System to have quality variables where there is a
one-to-one match at the pixel level between a given quality variable and 1 or
more
