Dear all,
first of all let me say that I truely appreciate the careful
discussion my proposal has initiated. This indeed is probably the most
convincing reason why CF has been accepted already in several parts of
the community.
Steve made a very nice distinction to clarify what my suggestio
Dear Martin et al
Some quantities are so specific to a particular dataset or model that it would
not be worth the effect of defining a standard name for them, since they will
never be compared with data from another source, the main reason for standard
names being to indicate which quantities shou
om: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On
Behalf Of Nan Galbraith [ngalbra...@whoi.edu]
Sent: 12 May 2010 20:35
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] non-standard standard_names
The original proposal was to include names that have been rejected
The original proposal was to include names that have been rejected by
CF for being "too specialized" - these would be permanent parts of the
project vocabulary, not deprecated.
Many in situ instruments produce non-geophysical variables that fall
into this category; although this isn't what Martin
Hi John,
Would it be right to think of the strategy you've outlined as an
elaboration on "Alternative 1":
Should the CF standard_name process, *itself*, include a
"provisional fast-track", that allows names to be added very quickly
with no guarantee that they will have a lasting statu
OK, now I have to submit my other notion after all, which I think addresses
some of Steve's concerns. But let me semi-agree with his first paragraph --
I'm enthusiastic, but I think there are a lot of details to be agreed on. I'll
come back to that in a separate post.
I had thought it was imp
This seems like a good idea, but I have to disagree with one part of it.
It looks like you want to change the CF convention so that a variable is not
required to have either a long name or an un-prefixed standard name. This
requirement seems like a very basic part of the standard to me, and one
Hi Martin,
You've had two enthusiastic "yes" responses, so I guess I have the
privilege to be the wet blanket. So it goes. I will give only a very
cautious and limited "yes". Not an outright "no" ... but a suggestion
for more thought and discussion.
The proposal here is effectively the c
.ucar.edu]
De la part de John Graybeal
Envoyé : mercredi 12 mai 2010 16:15
À : Schultz, Martin
Cc : cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Objet : Re: [CF-metadata] non-standard standard_names
Martin et al,
I like this approach. I think this is an important addition to the CF concept,
it supports much more s
Martin et al,
I like this approach. I think this is an important addition to the CF concept,
it supports much more scalability and encourages much more adoption.
There may be some concern that is not immediately obvious to me, but I have
been thinking about a complementary solution from the sem
Dear all,
we are currently cleaning all files on our TFHTAP multi-model
experiment server to make them fully CF(1.0) conformant. It has been
about 3 years since we had drafted the original format description of
these experiments and also initiated the standard name discussion for
chemical cons
11 matches
Mail list logo
