Hello Martin, > If the two end points can be specified with bounds within the existing > convention, it might be simpler to use that. Can you explain to me how this > is done? The only reference to bounds which I could find in the convention > was in connection with cell boundaries.
I don't think it can be done. I agree with your analysis, the only reference to bounds is with regard to cell boundaries. It think it is sensible to keep it this way and provide a separate mechanism for your transect use case. I think overloading the current bounds mechanism is likely to lead to problems. > The flow direction does need to be defined .. I suppose that would involve a > clarification of the standard_name ocean_volume_transport_across_line. As you > say, this should not be too complicated once we have a definition of the line > to refer to. It would be good to consider if this could be defined for the transect, so that standard_name descriptions can remain unchanged. I'll think on this some more. > The approach I was thinking of could easily accommodate multiple points on a > line, though I don't have a use for it at present. e.g. excellent. I'll follow up on this soon mark _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
