We have lots and lots of polygons with self intersections where the polygon
closes on itself at a node. It may not cross but it does need to pinch off an
open back up -- so an intersection is real.
I don't think CF should have a horse in this race.
>From my recollection, there are no rules on topology in the spec, so yes. Self
>intersections are fine.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@davidhassell -- does history.adoc still need to be updated? If not, go ahead
and merge.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
All looks good to me. The new figures and inclusion of source code is !!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #301 via #302.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/301#event-4028766003
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
Merged #302 into master.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/302#event-4028765981
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
@dblodgett-usgs pushed 1 commit.
5dd00aa611504fa9179f1291095ba5cd2f674380 Merge branch 'master' into domain
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@davidhassell -- please update the history then we can go ahead and merge IMHO.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/302#issuecomment-732218396
This list
@dblodgett-usgs approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/302#pullrequestreview-536557848
This list forwards relevant notifications
And this is in reference to
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/blob/master/ch06.adoc#taxon-names-and-identifiers
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Hey @albenson-usgs - It's not really clear to me what the specific change to
the specification would be. Can you boil your detailed proposal down to a
problem / solution?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
If no further discussion takes place in #301, we will merge this pull request
on Monday November 23rd.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I agree @davidhassell and I don't think the subsequent conversation warrants
any further summary above. Thanks for the good conversation all.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Point of order, I updated the moderator comments in the description above.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/301#issuecomment-709689970
This list forwards
@davidhassell -- I left a couple comments on your PR #302 to seed some further
discussion.
See
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/302#discussion_r493579512
We need to be very aware that this change will loosen / modify the
field-variable-centric nature of CF. I've always
@dblodgett-usgs commented on this pull request.
> +data variable for describing a domain, with exactly the same meanings
+and syntaxes, as described in <>. If an attribute
+is needed by a particular data variable to describe its domain, then
+that attribute would also be needed by the
@dblodgett-usgs commented on this pull request.
> +
+A data variable defines its domain via its own attributes, but a
+domain variable provides the description of a domain in the absence of
+any data values. It is of arbitrary type since it contains no data. It
+acts as a container for the
@davidhassell -- I'm in support of this in concept and would be willing to
moderate the discussion. I will review the PR in detail soon.
Others, please review. Comments on detailed aspects of the PR can be in line,
but please put all general discussion here.
--
You are receiving this because
Merged #264 into master.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/264#event-3386786109
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
I'd say since this has been approved by at-least one community member and no
objection has been raised for more than three weeks we should go ahead and
merge.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@dblodgett-usgs approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/264#pullrequestreview-420869038
This list forwards relevant notifications
@davidhassell -- I'm happy with your proposed changes.
Regarding the coordinate construct *instance* vs coordinate construct *data
model*, let me try and clarify.
When I see:
> For a given coordinate construct ...
I read that as there are *n* coordinate construct instances but I think what
@dblodgett-usgs approved this pull request.
Pending response to my comments in #271 I approve this PR.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
The text scans well. I would have benefited from a stand-alone set of
definitions for these and subsequent highlighting of the normative terms or
maybe just highlighting of the normative terms in the text. Terms I'm thinking
about are:
- Auxiliary coordinate constructs
- Dimension coordinate
@dblodgett-usgs commented on this pull request.
> If a domain axis construct does not correspond to a continuous
physical quantity, then it is not necessary for it to be associated
with a dimension coordinate construct. For example, this is the case
for an axis that runs over ocean basins
Just noting that this has been open for far too long. @davidhassell and
@roy-lowry are called out as reviewers. What's the status?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
and sorry for the delay in merging.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/236#issuecomment-621377713
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It
Merged #236 into master.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/236#event-3285839250
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
It's not clear how this repository relates to the github.io web page and how
the travis build publishes that latest spec.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Yes, I think we should merge this in a few days to get it into 1.8 if possible.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/223#issuecomment-579832451
This list
It looks like we have sufficient agreement to start the clock on agreeing to
merge #224. If there are no substantive modifications or objections, it can be
merged in three weeks per the [contribution
guidelines.](https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
--
Fine by me. There was no reason to use **strong** text rather than titles when
those were created AFAIK.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #218.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/218#event-2940589049
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
The description has been updated with my summary. I think this issue is at a
point where a pull request with suggested modifications would be helpful.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Great strategy @JimBiardCics. Having contributed an attempted implementation to
map CF conventions to WKT -- I know how error prone and hard it can be. Moving
toward support of WKT as a fully fledged option within CF is unambiguously a
good thing in my mind.
@marqh's suggested text changes
Fantastic. A model to follow I think.
In case others have not seen it, any edited comment has a drop down to access
the history of that comment as well. The summary comment of this issue says it
was lasted edited by @erget and has the option to see those changes.
--
You are receiving this
Merged #209 into master.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/209#event-2912250378
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
Closed #203.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/203#event-2912250396
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
Merged #214 into master.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/214#event-2911585263
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from
Closed #213 via 3200669060522b41bb38227e62b54887786d0fd7.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/213#event-2911585272
This list forwards relevant notifications
Thanks @neumannd Looks good to me and has been open long enough to merge,
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/213#issuecomment-569379975
This list forwards
I've not had time to take this issue in, but I notice that it does not have a
moderator assigned. Can someone who's taken part summarize the discussion and
suggest whether it is concluded or not? I'll gladly assign a moderator who
wants to be identified as such!
--
You are receiving this
With no dissent on this or #203 in a while, ok if I go ahead and merge? If no
response by January 6th, I will.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Dear @snowman2 --
I agree with @JonathanGregory, that if things are missing from CF that are in
WKT, they should be added.
Maybe the core of your proposal is actually best made to the GDAL / PROJ
project to modify default behavior when working with CF data? When different, a
warning could
Hi @TomLav -- thanks for reaching out.
That discussion was partly taken up in the development of:
http://cfconventions.org/cf-conventions/cf-conventions.html#geometries but as
you can see in Example 7.15, the point coordinates are still more or less
required to use the timeSeries feature type.
OK... but you are the proposer too? That seems to be a conflict of interest.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/148#issuecomment-437375149
@davidhassell -- I'm a little hesitant to merge my own PR. Do you mind pushing
the button?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/115#issuecomment-437353665
dblodgett-usgs approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/149#pullrequestreview-171850274
Dear All,
Now that ticket the github contributing rules have been merged in #137, I think
this PR can be merged, right?
- Dave
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Now that #137 is merged, I think we also need to merge:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-convention.github.io/pull/62 right? Once
that's done, I think this issue should be closed.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
As an FYI, if you want to compare two branches or forks, you can view a pull
request without actually creating it for others to see and comment on. So in
this case, we can compare @czender's ["groups"
branch](https://github.com/czender/cf-conventions/tree/groups) against the
current
typos corrected.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/130#issuecomment-415978853
@dblodgett-usgs pushed 1 commit.
23c0db2 minor contributing update
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@cameronsmith1 -- my point on that was that I don't think any guidance we write
now is going to be right. So we should use our best judgement on the workflow
when we get there. I would rather not attempt to write rules for that stuff
until we have more experience.
--
You are receiving this
@dblodgett-usgs pushed 1 commit.
36b797c template updates
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/137/files/d17c4bab8d69ec027146686b9e4631e2d2e179f6..36b797c524528b158854a511000ff191fe20881f
Dear Jonathan,
I've updated https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-convention.github.io/pull/62
to include changes to errors.md.
I opened https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/131 to deal
with labels. My suggested changes are:
Remove: `asciidoctor mod?`, `bug`, `invalid`,
Closed #134.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/134#event-1761033389
Oh. I see. Subsampled or otherwise not completely characterized coordinates
such as origin/offset _is_ a separate issue. I misunderstood.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Dear Jonathan,
Actually, this text will end up in a "CONTRIBUTING.md" in this repository. It
may also end up on the main web site. [This pull request
](https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-convention.github.io/pull/62) likely
needs some attention in light of the conversation here.
- Changed
@dblodgett-usgs pushed 3 commits.
7ce6b4a change bounds to nodes and qualify their use
591cb88 appa and text update per review
f9cef4a Merge pull request #12 from dblodgett-usgs/bounds_nodes
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@dblodgett-usgs pushed 5 commits.
3d42587 draft github CONTRIBUTING guidelines
a5495b4 minor changes per review
dd39d15 labels
3a13030 Merge branch 'master' of github.com:dblodgett-usgs/cf-conventions
0629508 appa and update per review
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed
Hi All,
This conversation has come quite a long ways. Glad to see that we are coming to
some conclusions.
I've done a bit of cleanup on the "CONTRIBUTING.md" document in the pull
request mentioned above. Please comment and edit away.
If we can work that text to finality, I think we just
This is related to issue #130.
Please comment in line here or go to my fork:
https://github.com/dblodgett-usgs/cf-conventions/blob/github_migration/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md
and contribute directly to my version of the document via pull request.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull
Dear All,
I would be supportive of a clean break from Trac -- and it's clear that there
is a constituency in the community that would prefer that path. I think it is
also clear that we are suggesting that outcome in the near future anyways, but
potentially not an immediate retirement of Trac.
It seems that #130 has come to near consensus regarding its main purpose. This
pull request is draft text for the group to evolve to make sure we get the
message right.
Note that this text was already evolved slightly by @ChrisBarker-NOAA and I in
@dblodgett-usgs pushed 2 commits.
16c9b01 Add bounds to first geometry example. Correct typo in history. Mention
right-hand rule for polygon rings, and that interior rings must occur after the
exterior ring that contains them, as per discussion at June netCDF workshop.
6903131 Merge pull
@davidhassell and @JonathanGregory -- can you register your approval for
merging this change or let us know what else we should discuss?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
I % agree with @ajelenak-thg.
I think this is more or less how the repository works now and this is a very
natural pattern. Released tags would get built and stored as binaries here:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/releases as well as on the main
cf web page.
--
You are
The [labels](https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/labels) list is
good but could use some modifications?
Suggestion:
Remove: `asciidoctor
Dear all,
Apologies for going mute for a bit. Apparently, my email overlords (bow to the
security gods) decided that github notifications are spam -- amazing how you
don't miss notifications when they are gone.
I 100% agree that an external document is an imperfect solution that is really
Can we go ahead and merge this? I think we've checked all the boxes.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/115#issuecomment-390831201
Dear CF community,
I've started work on #130. It can be seen in pull request form between branches
in my fork
[here](https://github.com/dblodgett-usgs/cf-conventions/pull/10/files) or in
rendered markdown form
@dblodgett-usgs pushed 2 commits.
64bde66 Replace axis with bounds for coordinate variables related to geometry
node variables.
033cc25 Merge pull request #9 from twhiteaker/master
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
>From my perspective, we're good. The only thing left is to add Tim and my
>names to the spec which, I don't feel is really needed, but if the community
>wants to I think it would be ok.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view
Dear All,
As a next step toward the CF community using GitHub tools to discuss and refine
the specification, we need contribution guidelines for this repository. For
background and interesting reading, this issue follows #106 and #112 and is
more or less governed by the CF community
Closed #106.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/106#event-1569630685
Dear All,
There's been some question as to whether a timeSeries featureType is allowed to
have a "reference time" dimension in addition to a "valid time" dimension as in
a forecast model run collection. See:
https://github.com/Unidata/thredds/issues/1080
Is `Mandatory space-time coordinates
Fixed? Hopefully since it was the 1.7 milestone?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/8#issuecomment-379946230
Where do we stand on this? The cf email list has been pretty quiet, but this
space has been even quieter. @painter1 -- did the tests over in #126 work out?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Closed #112.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/112#event-1565115414
Fixed by #115
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/112#issuecomment-379944827
Is anyone watching this space? No response to @cschroed-usgs for a while.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/115#issuecomment-379944595
It'd be great to get this merged! I need to get my R implementation up to snuff
with a couple changes and that would give me the kick I need to get to that
work!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@dblodgett-usgs pushed 2 commits.
7975d39 If coordinates attribute is carried by geometry container, require
coordinate variables which correspond to node coordinate variables to have the
corresponding axis attribute.
91a74e4 Merge pull request #7 from twhiteaker/master
--
You are
Assuming someone maintains the mapping between DOI and the intended digital
object's current URL.
Otherwise, DOIs become stale unique strings the same as URLs do.
I said I'd stay out of the persistent identifier flame war, but I failed. Maybe
we should use blockchain.
> On Jan 19, 2018, at
85 matches
Mail list logo
