ronmental Data Scientist
Normal Working Hours (Mon-Thurs): 9am-5pm (Fri 4:30pm)
RAL Space | R25 | Ext: 6710
Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA)
Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory | Harwell Campus
Didcot | OX11 0QX
www.ceda.ac.uk<http://www.ceda.ac.uk/>
--
that
on, a grain of salt is probably in order.
John
---
John Graybeal
> On Apr 4, 2019, at 18:44, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
> wrote:
>
> Maybe it’s way too late now, but why does the data model have to allow only
> one attribute: glo
all CF uses, or
*a* zenith for the current CF uses, may be worth discussing. Doing the former
would be hard to undo later.
John
---
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
650-450-1853
skype: graybealski
linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johngraybeal/
&g
Barna wrote:
> I've never personally liked the name "status_flag" and have always
> interpreted it to be the "CF way" of saying "these values are either an
> associative array or bit field or some combination of both". It is also a
> special case
of information contained in the variable.
Quality: The value of a variable with standard name quality_flag refers to an
assessed quality of the corresponding data.
regards,
Martin
From: John Graybeal <mailto:jgrayb...@stanford.edu>
Sent: 24 July 2019 09:20
To
logical Studies
ARM Climate Research Facility - Data Quality Office
e-mail: kke...@ou.edu<mailto:kke...@ou.edu><mailto:kke...@ou.edu> | Office:
303-497-4754
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata@cgd.ucar
To which may I add, it’s a big relief not having commas in the standard name.
That would break some software, I feel sure! In addition to not being
pronounceable among the average technologist.
john
---
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
skype
Martin,
I like your definition.
While there is a case for renaming the standard name, it’s long-time use,
validity, and the fact only sophisticated data managers use standard names (and
most data users just look primarily at variable names) says to me we should
keep the existing standard nam
1) I support Simon/Roy’s request, it seems straightforward.
2) Roy M, it would be good to get that discussion topic in a ticket, so we can
continue it there. But, I should warn you, I also went through that argument
about 12 years ago, and I can vouch that the CF metadata community has been
con
old thread below.
john
---
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
> On Nov 4, 2018, at 09:03, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>
> Dear Martin
>
> Your points are good ones and have been raised before. More than once we have
> talked about maintaini
ons, and masts. Course is the clockwise
angle with respect to North of the nominal forward motion direction of the
platform.
platform_orientation: Platform is a structure or vehicle that serves as a base
for mounting sensors. Platforms include, but are not limited to, satellites,
aero
eave at the 7th point a negative number, since the ship just went
down 3 units?) If someone can answer that then our best definition might be
more obvious.
John
---
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
> On Jul 29, 2018, at 04:29, Lowry, Roy K. wr
I actually find this new name/definition internally inconsistent. An elevation
that is ‘due to storm surge’ seems to be relative to the elevation without the
storm surge, which makes the datum irrelevant. Unless the change due to the
storm surge would be measured differently under different dat
nomic identifiers (search ‘organism’ in BioPortal to find both good and bad
examples of this).
John
---
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
650-450-1853
skype: graybealski
linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/johngraybeal/
> On Apr 16, 2018, at 03:10, Lowr
water can take, so that those of us less atmospherically advanced
will be able to appreciate what it’s meant to include.
john
---
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
> On Apr 6, 2018, at 23:49, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC
> wrote:
>
> D
It does rather seem that you’ve waited long enough. I’m in favor!
john
---
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
> On Mar 15, 2018, at 07:35, Elodie Fernandez
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> My proposal from July 11th for a new standard nam
he 90% issue
raised above will make it an unsatisfying ending.
I believe I supplied my spreadsheet as part of a CF metadata list submission,
but if you want it I think I can find it. Obviously about 5 years of updates
out of date now. :-)
John
---
John Gray
Agree with the overall thread. Having well-documented examples in either sense
is a great step.
The examples on the NOAA site (sorry, imprecise reference without my computer
handy) showing how to structure and document different kinds of marine
observations might be a good start for such a col
Matthias,
Having talked to a number of scientists and data processing folks when trying
to advance these proposals, it was clear that all different scenarios were
possible. We tried to write the descriptions to describe the meaning of the
value, without regard to the circumstances of the measur
for modifications to the original data’. If
> this file _is_ the original data, I don’t see how there can be any
> modifications to it yet, I would call this a CF issue (and we of ACDD
> carefully avoided messing with CF definitions, as I recall), so maybe that
> group needs to weigh in.
be using it.
john
--
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
On Mar 7, 2016, at 17:47, Karl Taylor wrote:
> Dear Peter, Craig and all,
>
> For observations I am not arguing that all the different ocean temperature
> definitions aren&#
The closest thing to such a comparison I know of (and it isn't close) may be
the CF FAQ. Mentioned as encouragement to update the FAQ with either the
pointer to any such comparison, or the simple comparison itself.
john
---
John Graybeal
jb
orted.)
John
---
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
On Jul 22, 2015, at 01:59, Hedley, Mark wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with John's last statement. I think that an ensemble is
> a defined collection of members, so my need is the need
; with the other members of the ensemble.
>
> Karl
>
> On 7/20/15 9:49 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
>> To save others the lookup, the use case phrasing that Mark signed on to were
>> these words: "In my use case, the whole ensemble is not present, I only have
>> a s
ize" suffice?
>
> thanks,
> Karl
>
>
> On 7/20/15 9:24 AM, Hedley, Mark wrote:
>> Hello CF
>>
>> Late last year we had a discussion about storing
>> original_ensemble_size
>> in a CF file
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/
Like it with the ATCF references, thank you.
I think the parenthetical about “A string type variable should not normally
have a “units” attribute.” is unnecessary, can we delete it?
John
> On Jul 3, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Carlomusto, Michael wrote:
>
> Thread: "new standard name:
> automated_tr
Hi Aaron,
As the last person to take a swing at this ISO 8601 piñata, I'm sorry to report
it shows no sign of yielding candy. :-)
I don't have time to look up the correspondence, but the principal convincing
arguments as I recall are (a) it is a simple value, not a string, thereby
saving all
Yes, just so. Changes are under way to take care of this issue. Not sure
exactly when they'll be deployed, but we all have agreed (uh, are about to have
agreed?) on how to fix it.
John
On Jun 24, 2015, at 12:40, Chris Barker wrote:
> Just a comment from the Peanut Gallery:
>
> when I go to
ugh I
think that is implementable with a single Apache redirect rule (requiring
updates), that idea is one or two future steps away, to the best of my
knowledge.
Happy to be reminded if I have forgotten the useful trick.
John
---
John Graybeal
Project Lead
Marine Met
d salinity measures should be
>>>> performed by application of the appropriate formulas specified by TEOS-10.
>>>> This name should not be used to describe salinity observations made before
>>>> 1978, or ones not based on conductivity measurements. There are als
the units, that I created some months back in the
hope we could represent them in an upcoming version of the ontologies cited
above. Jim, you might want to see if you can include that in your browser, you
might well beat us to it, to good effect.
John
John Graybeal
Marine Metadata
If we have actually agreed on what CF-1.7 is -- that is, ALL the things that
make up CF-1.7 -- then I agree that telling people to put CF-1.7 into the
Conventions attribute is Just Fine. But I didn't realize we knew what all the
1.7 things were yet.
Also, if we do know what all the things are
I agree too much information is less helpful than the right amount of
information, and saying what something *is* should come before saying what it
is not. So from the first two versions I suggest the following, which also
changes minor things about the standard included phrasing at the end (rep
Jim,
I think you go straight to the problem with using 1, or any number, as an
indication of 'dimensionless'. If I can't create a meaningful result with
linear math relations, than saying the unit is 1 invites difficulties.
That said, 1 seems better than .001. :-)
john
On May 27, 2015, at 11:
he unit, and
reported their 0-40 values as 0 to 0.040, as Rich just said. (I'm assuming
using the values 0 to 40 is the only correct range, because P.S. is
dimensionless and you can't multiply it meaningfully. Right?) But that problem
exists no matter what we do with canonical unit from he
Without fully appreciating _all_ the particulars (sorry!), I think Jonathan's
diagnostic (that people would tend to keep using gregorian) is correct. I like
the idea of a warning against that practice, with a recommendation to use
gregorian_nls if that's appropriate (and of course a pointer to t
I don't think we have any cases exactly like the one being proposed, but I
agree that in this case a 1 AU default with a specific way to override it is
exactly the right way to go.
John
On May 20, 2015, at 06:17, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Odele
>
>> Just to clarify, are you asking only
I'm a little surprised no one else has commented on the plan to change all the
photosynthetic radiation definitions. I expect you've all heard the purist view
before, so I'll keep it short.
The obvious issue is that all files written with the previous definition in
place -- of which there must
I can't find any other cases where CF includes the units explicitly in the
definition, since they are given explicitly by the canonical units entry. So I
suggest the "in units of..." phrase be removed from both definitions.
John
On May 1, 2015, at 10:01, Jim Biard wrote:
> Hi.
>
> The defin
Is there by any chance a more quantitative specification of "the
photosynthetically active radiation spectral region" that could be a part of
the definition?
John
On May 1, 2015, at 08:42, Philip Jones - NOAA Affiliate
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am sending this request on behalf of Martin C
I've been having trouble following some of the language, and so I want to start
by citing this snippet as a clear description of current practice:
On Apr 28, 2015, at 14:41, Jim Biard wrote:
> In the "real" world, we often start with UTC timestamps that have leap
> seconds accounted for, yet
This seems to point to a bigger problem. These mail messages are supposed to be
publicly readable, are they not? It appears the installation has changed this
into a private (not viewable) repository, based on this thread and the new URL.
That's definitely not what we want.
If it IS what we wan
As I Am Not A Scientist, may I suggest that the text that was lost in this
latest round, "It is used to estimate the change in dissolved oxygen in a
parcel of water due to biological and chemical processes at depth since it left
the surface." is important, because it explains to the rest of us w
ry to avoid obscurity in
> standard names for that reason. But, as I said, if I'm the only person who
> thinks that about this instance, I'm not going to hold out for it.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> - Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K." ---
aphers to estimate non-physical effects on
> oxygen, where non-physical means biological processes (uptake/release and
> chemical reaction).
If it turns out in the future this name causes trouble, we have a mechanism to
fix it. But I think the domain-specific name will benefit CF more th
Jonathan, thank you for your considered update. If we 'deprecate' a released
version that has an error, presumably this just means it is no longer
recommended for use? I assume data sets released with the flawed version
shouldn't have to be re-released, if the flaw did not affect them.
And I'm
s above scenarios, I see the benefits of
the provisional period, even in the most unlikely and pathological case of
oversights and errors leading to squirrelly outcomes, are minimal at best.
John
On Jan 28, 2015, at 10:05, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear John, Seth and all.
>
>
ionality isn't valuable, now is
the perfect time to upgrade the model.
John
---
John Graybeal
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
On Jan 27, 2015, at 10:05, Seth McGinnis wrote:
> Speaking as Joe Average User, my impression is that the only
Perhaps this is a use case where aliases could help.
I remember making this same argument for a term many years ago, and being told
the reason for using the semantically modeled term is that *everyone else* who
isn't in the field will recognize it.
Wouldn't it be the best of both worlds if both
is not. In which case, a definition presumably could focus
clearly on that difference.
John
---
John Graybeal
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
MMI Ontology Registry and Repository: http://mmisw.org/orr
On Jan 15, 2015, at 10:02, Jonathan Gregory wrot
ention, almost done now:
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_1-3
* coverage_content_type attribute:
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_1-3#coverage_content_type
* purpose of a standard name: http://cfconventions.or
>> definition: a measure of distance from Earth's geocenter, commonly used in
>> the satellite tracks.
>>
>> Let me know if you need more information.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 17:33 -0700, John Graybeal wrote:
>>&
. The definition is more important for a clear request.
John
[1] How to ask for a standard_name:
http://cfconventions.org/faq.html#stdnames_ask
---
John Graybeal
On Nov 26, 2014, at 11:37, Sean Davis wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am involved in the SP
't have an existing
>> way
>> to provide this information, and it would be fine to give it a new standard
>> name. I suppose you could attach this information to the data variable using
>> a
>> scalar coordinate variable - is that what you think?
>>
>&
Was down the times I checked this weekend, not sure it has been up since then.
John
On Nov 5, 2014, at 07:52, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> I can't connect to the CF trac ticket website at the moment.
> http://kitt.llnl.gov/trac
> Do others have this problem? Am I using the wrong URL?
>
> Thanks f
> In a model or operational forecast, the number of member realizations within
> a given ensemble. This provides context for any specific realization, for
> example orienting a member relative to its original group (even if the group
> is no longer intact).
>
> many thanks
> m
Thanks for summing this up so neatly Mark!
> We could take the view that the conventions would benefit from the addition
> of some text into 3.1 to explicitly make the point about quantities which are
> not dimensioned or dimensionless.
> We could alternatively defer to udunits as most unit q
dinal number (7) of this particular member. Why can't that be recorded in
> > a variable with the existing standard_name of realization?
>
> there are two pieces of information here, in CF terms this is:
> realization = 7
> number_of_realizations = 9
> I just unpacked thi
Hi Mark,
It is a worry if the definition is a repetition or variant of the words in the
name. In particular, the word 'realization' will be meaningful to
modelers/forecasters but not universally.
My first desire was to generalize the term (e.g., 'how many entities are in a
collection of that
> Namely, if we agree what we want to do in CF-2.0, including
> backward-incompatible changes, does that mean CF-1 will stop at CF-1.7 (the
> version currently being drafted)?
Perhaps that is a decision that can be made at the appropriate time, namely:
after CF-2.0 is well on its way toward co
Chris B, this was a terrific recap, and the NDP interactive cheatsheet was cool
once I got the idea of clicking on something. (The escape a git mess,
step-by-step was also fun!) I recommend reading some other guide first before
looking too long at those cheatsheet details though -- it's a bit
I don't have the keys, though it's possible I will get them soon. This is a
known problem and that the people who do have the keys have been dealing with
higher-priority issues, but intend to get to this soon.
I think this list *is* the webmaster mailto link, but I agree a separate one
(or at l
On Sep 23, 2014, at 06:26, Hattersley, Richard
wrote:
>> You _can_ have different documents in different branches, but that's not
>> really how branches were designed to be used, and I think would be a big
>> confusing.
>
> Indeed. Given their independent release cycles it would be *much* mo
On Sep 22, 2014, at 12:44, Chris Barker wrote:
> So I want to refine your proposal to say yes, let's use branches, but not to
> split out the pieces of the standard into separate repositories. The overhead
> in maintaining repositories will be high and the benefit low.
>
> I think the key que
On Sep 22, 2014, at 12:35, Signell, Richard wrote:
> Does this mean the current CF source is docbook xml?
> https://github.com/cf-convention/repository-cf/tree/master/cf-conventions/trunk/docbooksrc
Sorry, correct -- the site is markup (see
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-convention.github.i
First, to my knowledge the existing 1.6 and 1.7 are in Markdown already. I
thought that was settled? And the standard names are in XML, and that is
settled.
Then, I wasn't sure if Rich's proposal was with respect to the 1.x/2.x
division? Or is it only about the documents inside CF currently? W
> However, I don't think it would be bad just to tweak the definition of
> "above".
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
>
> - Forwarded message from "Hollis, Dan" -
>
>> From: "Hollis, Dan"
>> To: CF Metadata List
>> CC: &#x
uld be to just adopt "platform_altitude" as
> an alias for "surface_altitude" and suggest deprecating the use of
> "surface_altitude"?
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM, John Graybeal
> wrote:
>> Interesting that there is so little discussi
; I hope that's acceptable but let me know if anyone spots any problems with
> this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
>
> From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of John
> Graybeal
> Sent: 04 September 2014 17:21
> To: Gregory, Jonathan
Interesting that there is so little discussion of this language in the mail
list, only in John Caron's 2011.09.16 mail on standard names for stations
(which refers to words already in draft 1.6, I think) -- which came at the tail
end of a long thread on platform names/IDs.
>From those words, I
tform, for example.
>
> One other comment about units, the units for the first 3 terms may be off.
> For a volume you'd want m3 (cubed m) not m-3 (1 over cubed m), but the
> description doesn't seem like a volume. Other people with more expertise on
> this topic can c
more expertise on this topic can
chime in here.
John
John Graybeal
Marine Data Manager
M +1 408 675-5445
Marinexplore
On Sep 16, 2014, at 00:20, Damien Boulanger wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> within the frame of the IGAS project (IAGOS for Copernicus Atmospheric
&g
Sorry for the blocked link. The problem could be either that the visible URL
didn't match the link URL (thought I checked that but ...), or that the short
URL is immediately redirected by the service (using a 302 temporary redirect)
to a longer URL (http://mmisw.org/orr/#http://mmisw.org/ont/cf
mental/vbrowser/cfat/#/
The PCMDI folks have to make the change on the CF standard name page, I don't
have permission to change that myself.
John
On Sep 12, 2014, at 05:37, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear John
>
> - Forwarded message from John Graybeal -
>
>> I cr
t from you is especially welcome.
John
-------
John Graybeal
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
MMI Ontology Registry and Repository: http://mmisw.org/orr
On Sep 11, 2014, at 09:39, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Dan
>
> The surface type can b
ct about how the threshold is applied.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> - Forwarded message from "Hollis, Dan" -
>
>> From: "Hollis, Dan"
>> To: 'John Graybeal' , Alison Pamment
>> , CF Metadata List
>>
I too have often been frustrated with the on-line archive search capabilities.
The suggestion below (search by yearly archive file) is useful only if the
topic is discussed entirely within a year, and you know which year that was,
and it was a year after 2005 (since years 2002-2005 show "Gzip'd
While I agree it is not a big problem to use at_or_above_threshold in this and
whatever other standard names eventually are needed, discoverability would be
better with the boolean attribute ("comparison_includes_equality"?). As a
practical matter, people looking for, e.g.,
number_of_days_with_
resending to the list, a bit belatedly...
Hi Dan,
There is no way to search the CF-metadata archives directly that I know of.
I tried using a little Google-fu to do a site search, entering
site:http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/ "above_threshold"
finds five matches:
http://
e reason to move to github? I'm not objecting,
> just curious!
>
> http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/111
>
> Thanks - Nan
>
> On 8/17/14 7:49 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
>> Thanks Bob. Noted as issue #21: home page link to CF Conventions Document
>> broken.
Thanks Bob. Noted as issue #21: home page link to CF Conventions Document
broken.
As you can see from the Google issues list quite a few issues have been
identified and fixed within the last few working days, Matthew has done a lot.
By later this week I'm guessing the links and nav will be pur
Hi Reyna,
Yes, this is in scope for CF.
There is a standard name height_above_sea_floor (no definition, canonical units
meters) which has the meaning you need, if you use a negative number for the
distance your data is below the sea floor.
If this is not ideal, possibly we could add depth_be
t;>>> attributes in terms of function: easier than coord vars, and more
> >>>>powerful
> >>>> than attributes because they can themselves have attributes.
> >>>
> >>>[3]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Jul 23, 20
.ac.uk
>> STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>> R25, 2.22
>> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Niedfeldt, John C (398M-Affiliate)
>>> [mailto:john.c.niedfe...@jpl.nasa.gov]
&
5/docs/standard_output.xls ). We'd have to
> find a volunteer to do that. In any case it wouldn't hurt to open a ticket,
> I suppose.
>
> Karl
>
> On 7/10/14, 3:46 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
>> Reviewing the CF list for the FAQ, I found this quote about AMIP
Alison, in your suggested rephrasing, some things appear that you seemed to
previously reject:
> "It is the fraction of incident power that is reflected by the surface."
As I understood it, in this case it is the fraction of incident power that is
reflected by the surface AND not scattered by i
ngineer
> Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory
> 4800 Oak Grove Dr
> M/S 158-242
> Pasadena, CA 91109
> Phone: 818.354.2038
> Fax: 818.353.2718
> ==
>
> From: John Graybeal
using that standard name as invalid. For these reasons and more, I believe we
> should make a new standard name. The definition I have provided is accurate
> and once approved additional attributes and values can be made required to
> suit all needs for those dealing with the normal
John, I think we (I, anyway) were waiting for a little more clarification as to
what was needed. Sorry for that delay. I like the name itself, makes sense to
me.
Unless I am mistaken, from your email I infer that the meaning of this is a
narrow case of surface_backwards_scattering_coefficien
:
https://github.com/graybealski/cf-conventions-work/blob/master/FAQ.md#stdnames_tools
John Graybeal and Carlos Rueda
MMI
---
John Graybeal
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
grayb...@marinemetadata.org
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
I've been working on a Frequently Asked Questions file for CF, and at this
point I'd like to put it out there for comment.
It's currently in my own repository (but at some point I expect to migrate it
to an appropriate place in the new CF repository):
https://github.com/graybealski/graybeals
-standard-name-table-1.1.xsd">
>
>
>
>
> Reyna Jenkyns | Data Stewardship Team Lead - Digital Infrastructure
> Ocean Networks Canada | T 250 853 3908 | oceannetworks.ca
> University of Victoria PO Box 1700 STN CSC 2300 McKenzie Avenue Victoria, BC
> V8W 2Y2
>
>
XML file is better than nothing at all
> though.
>
> Jim
>
> On 7/11/14, 1:19 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
>> It's evidence of work in progress, I'm pretty sure. Standard names can be
>> found meanwhile at the documents page, http://cfconventions.org/documents.
It's evidence of work in progress, I'm pretty sure. Standard names can be
found meanwhile at the documents page, http://cfconventions.org/documents.
If you have a specific need (e.g., software interface) for the names to show up
at a particular page in a particular form, might mention that to t
em?
John
-------
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
650-450-1853
skype: graybealski
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
instead reads
> 'X_type_cloud_area_fraction is generally determined on the basis of cloud
> type, though numerical weather prediction models often calculate them based
> on the vertical location of the cloud.'
>
> thank you
> mark
> ____
for a first
> submission:
> 1. "biomass_fraction_of_" (using "biomass" as opposed to
> "mass" to refer to the dry mass).
> 2. "net_primary_productivity_of_biomass_accumulated_in_"
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
>
rm=rdf&uri=http://mmisw.org/ont/cf/parameter)
>
> I'm not sure if these are the best sources, but worth a look unless someone
> can suggest a more authoritative site.
>
> - Nan
>
> On 6/26/14 4:03 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 2014, at 16:34, Da
ay note that I still haven't finished that process for some requested
parameters I requested months ago. Never fear, is still on my list to do!
John Graybeal
jbgrayb...@mindspring.com
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http:
I like the change, but please spell out NWP (and if a proper noun, make sure it
is an unambiguous reference for anyone in the world).
john
On Jun 19, 2014, at 03:55, Hedley, Mark wrote:
> Hi Heiko, Alison, CF
>
> that all sounds good to me, many thanks for your input and advice Heiko
>
> I w
1 - 100 of 316 matches
Mail list logo
