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 biard): I think this way of thinking about the issue of global vs variable attributes within the CF data model is taking us down a wrong path. The idea that there should, in essence, be no "container" construct within the CF data model seems to me to be an attempt to force a particular viewpoint, rather than model what exists. Given that it's not likely that people will change this course, here's a suggestion for a compromise. If you allow an attribute to itself have a "parent" attribute associated with it, you could capture both the variable attribute value and the global attribute value without forcing a particular way of resolving the precedence question. You could give the association a name (that escapes me at the moment) to indicate the precedence relationship. -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/95#comment:105> 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.
