> From the data model perspective, there needs to be SOME way to define the
> connectivity. how it's done is a matter of the "encoding", yes?
Yes, that is what I was "trying" to say !
> ?? -- but does X connect to Y is the key concept we are trying to capture
> here.
> in "lay" terms, I
> It sounds like we agree that the domain could have multiple topologies (as
> opposed to topology constructs). It's a good point that we have no use case
> for two or more topology constructs, each of which applies to a single unique
> domain axis, and in fact we have no way of encoding it, so
Hi, sorry to be late to the table with this issue, but I have been listening in
here a while, in hopes of understanding better and maybe contributing.
I think that I may have spotted a potential problem with the removal of
'cf_role' :
As stated (above), the role of a mesh-variable is
Thanks for your clarifications @JonathanGregory and @zklaus.
I think I've understood this more clearly now.
And I'm happy to say, I'm agreeing with what you are both saying !
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> I would have thought that the the creation of all new CF-1.8 datasets should
> be deprecated.
Just listening in here + heard something that affects us, (i.e
> @taylor13 I haven't been following this, but what about tripolar grids,
> which are often used in ocean models?
> @zklaus How are they represented in CF right now? As far as I know only by 2d
> coordinates (which doesn't codify the iso-coordinate lines).
>From our specific experience : Most
> Are there any applications that actively read in and use the CF grid mapping
> parameters?
Not sure if I'm answering the right question here, but
[Iris](https://github.com/SciTools/iris) ***definitely does*** explicitly
interpret CF grid-mapping terms : we have explicit code for translating
