#140: Clarifying the role of attributes on boundary variables.
-----------------------------+------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  davidhassell    |      Owner:  cf-conventions@…
      Type:  enhancement     |     Status:  new
  Priority:  medium          |  Milestone:
 Component:  cf-conventions  |    Version:
Resolution:                  |   Keywords:  boundary variable, attribute
-----------------------------+------------------------------------------

Comment (by jonathan):

 Dear David

 Thanks for your posting. I agree that we should resolve this for the sake
 of CMIP6 and CF - we could still get it into 1.7 if we agree now about it.

 I would be happy with what you suggest, but I think that Karl wouldn't be.
 He think it's important that the bounds must have formula terms, so he
 would not like to allow your "Implicit" case. For the sake of reaching an
 agreement, I think it would be fine to require bounds to have formula
 terms (as Karl prefers), but I still want to permit formula terms to have
 bounds (as you and I prefer) and hence allow your "two methods" case.

 That was the aim of the text I proposed in comment 7

   If a parametric coordinate variable with a `formula_terms` attribute
 (ref section 4.3.2) also has a `bounds` attribute, its boundary variable
 must have a `formula_terms` attribute too. Because the same
 `standard_name` must describe both variables, the formula must have the
 same terms (as specified in Appendix D), but a different variable must be
 named by the two `formula_terms` attributes for any term which depends on
 the vertical dimension, because the boundary variables have one more
 dimension. The boundary variables for these formula terms may also be
 identified by `bounds` attributes of the formula terms variables. In that
 case, the `formula_terms` of the boundary variable and the `bounds` of the
 formula terms variables must be consistent.

 which would be well-illustrated by your "explicit" and "two methods" CDL.

 What do you think, Karl?

 Cheers

 Jonathan

--
Ticket URL: <https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/140#comment:11>
CF Metadata <http://cf-convention.github.io/>
CF Metadata

Reply via email to