This message came from the CF Trac system. Do not reply. Instead, enter your comments in the CF Trac system at https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/.
#95: Development of CF 1.5 Data Model -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: markh | Owner: [email protected] Type: task | Status: new Priority: medium | Milestone: Component: cf-conventions | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Comment (by davidhassell): Replying to [comment:99 jonathan]: > Dear all > > Replying to [comment:98 bnl]: > > I think the global/variable attribute as currently formulated does not allow an unambiguous resolution, and so the data model cannot either. > > > > > The data model is about data variables (fields), not about files. A field has only one property of a given name (source, etc.). So if it were decided that the current convention is ambiguous about how global and variable attributes in a netCDF file are to be treated, the data model could not say how the contents of the relevant property should be derived from the netCDF attributes. Is that right? > > > My interpretation was similar, but not quite the same? The lack of an unambiguouus resolution doesn't affect the data model because, whichever resolution is chosen (precedence or concatenation) , the field (in a data model sense) still has just one `comment` or one `source`, etc. I agree with rest of Jonathan's analysis. I like the idea for dealing with the current situation of simply giving software an option to combine the attributes upon reading them in. All the best, David -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/95#comment:100> CF Metadata <http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/> CF Metadata This message came from the CF Trac system. To unsubscribe, without unsubscribing to the regular cf-metadata list, send a message to "[email protected]" with "unsubscribe cf-metadata" in the body of your message.
