On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:28:15 +0100 Jonathan Gregory <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk> wrote: > >The CF convention as it stands can say a lot less, but it does look more >self-explanatory to me! The meaning of the WKT is not clear to me. I'm quite >uneasy about importing a convention into CF which produces opaque metadata >like this, even though it is no doubt machine-readable.
I'm uneasy about opaque metadata, too, especially when it comes to model output. (I'm agnostic about its use for observational data, or as an optional add-on.) Pragmatically, I think modelers could be asked to add some more parameters to their projection metadata, things like 'datum = "WGS84"' or 'ellipsoid = "spherical"', and that would be successful. I think if they were asked to add something long and mysterious like WKT, there would be a lot of model output with metadata that's either non-conformant or flat-out wrong. Another consideration, mentioned in a previous thread about datums, is that the reality of atmospheric models is they generally run on a spherical earth but use forcings taken from WGS84 locations without any transformation. So the datum is somewhat ill-defined in the first place. Would having WKT available for these cases imply a misleading level of specificity? Cheers, --Seth _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
