Dear Klaus,
I hope to allay your concerns by noting that all of the UGRID machinery for
storing connectivity will certainly be imported into CF unchanged - it is just
that in the logical data model we don't need to make special mention of it.
This is because it turns out the connectivity
Note that not having explicit connectivity creates a (potentially) rather large
computational overhead for the reconstruction of it. This will be exacerbated
with more complicated grids in the future, think time-dependent unstructured
grids, perhaps with regionally varying timestep.
I think it
Dear Jonathan,
That's right. I should have made that clearer, so many thanks for pointing it
out!
CF provides cell connectivity by inspection of coincident (or possibly
overlapping) bounds.
UGRID provides an index based encoding for making the connectivity easier to
find in many
I agree that a cell which is an edge bounded by two nodes is fine in the CF
data model, yes. (H) is correct that CF doesn't explicitly recognise
connectivity, although you could infer it from coincidence - isn't that right?
Jonathan
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
Hello,
In starting to think about:
> (H) Further to the discussion on implications on the CF data model
> (ugrid-conventions/ugrid-conventions/issues/52), the CF data model needs to
> be updated to allow the storage of topological connections between cells
> ("cells" in the CF data model
Dear @AndersMS. Daniel @erget et al.,
> Concerning terminology, following discussion in the group, these terms seem
> good candidates:
> At tie-point level: "subsampled dimension", "non-interpolated dimension"
> At reconstituted level: "interpolated dimension", "non-interpolated dimension"
