I believe this means the immediately prior source. If that source is the result
of a process, it should have its own provenance chain going further back.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
(Just an idea, take it or leave it.) I would add the following text after the
next-to-last sentence in the paragraph (which first uses the phrase "integer
types"): "In this document, the term "integer type" includes all of the
following types: …" Could be in parentheses, or not.
I think that
First two sentences are duplicated in the second two sentences?
--
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/222#issuecomment-586659223
This list forwards relevant
There are two perspectives in this thread (and the original WKT discussions)
about what it means for optional 'containers' like WKT to be acknowledged as
'valid' in CF. In one view, the acknowledgement puts some or all of the
responsibility for validating the container's content on CF, the CF
Or to deal with the edge cases and be consistent with our expectations:
_"If both a CRS WKT and grid mapping parameters exist, it is assumed that they
do not conflict. As such, information from either one (or both) may be used to
represent the CRS of the file, recognizing that the grid mapping
I support Roy's other points, but whatever experiences showed Roy the error of
his ways regarding name sorting never crossed my path. ;-) I find the wordings
beginning with quality_flag considerably more intuitive, because the most
important thing is that this is a quality flag, and the second
Concurring with the entirety of this thread, the place you ended up has the
advantage of being recognizable to any developer. With one possible exception,
most developers are used to feature branches I think, and it would be nice to
address this explicitly in some way, enough that someone who
I agree with "the main aim should always be to preserve the original meaning of
the data, not to accidentally change it by imposing a schema that is too
rigid", but I do not agree that the original meaning of the data has been
preserved by aliasing it to two identifiers.
Anyone who used the
Thank you Dave!
Well captured Chris, I concur. (And even for people who are newbies this could
be a nice gentle introduction to Pull Requests!)
I may be misremembering, but I thought that given the right configuration, text
files in GitHub can actually be 'edited in line' and submitted as a
OK, looks like I'll be the odd one out here. Let me ask a few questions:
* What will the DOI(s) be used for that the canonical URLs can not?
* What capability do the DOIs have that the canonical URLs do not?
* How will you resolve the duality of two canonical references, one being the
DOI and the
10 matches
Mail list logo
