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/.
#107: CF Data Model 1.7 -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: markh | Owner: [email protected] Type: task | Status: new Priority: medium | Milestone: Component: cf-conventions | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Comment (by davidhassell): Replying to [comment:7 markh]: Dear Mark, Some thoughts on your very useful comments: > Replying to [comment:5 jonathan]: > > > * You prefer "!CellMeasure" to "cell measure construct". Maybe "construct" isn't the best word, but we've used it in all the previously agreed text. I appreciate that your nomenclature would be more compact, but we should be consistent throughout the document. Could we postpone this until we've agreed all the sections? > > I would rather not postpone this, I think it makes a significant difference to readability, giving a visual clue each time a 'first class citizen' in the CF data model is mentioned. I think it would be a helpful approach to adopt. I'm happy not to postpone this, but would argue for the programming language neutral, plain English version ("cell measure construct") rather than, as I see it, the opposite ("!CellMeasure instance") > Alternatively, I think we know what condition we are trying to describe, that: the ''values'' array can be unambiguously mapped to the containing Field's ''data'' array and relevant coordinates. As this is within the scope of the Field, perhaps we can define the relation there, and for the !CellMeasure, simply state that: > '''A !CellMeasure instance must contain:''' > > '''* A typed numeric array of metric values''' OK. So long as we say for each construct that they contain an ordered subset of the domain axes (which I think was dropped from Mark's latest draft), I wonder if we need to mention the propagation along missing axes at all, for any construct. Given that the axes are orthogonal, can it be taken as read? I'm not sure what is being added by the word "typed", here. Is "numeric" not sufficient? > It is up to a Field to decide whether a !CellMeasure is consistent and able to be used. In principle, any ''values'' array is valid for an orphaned !CellMeasure, only a Field cares about consistency. There can be no such thing as an orphaned cell measure construct. A cell measure construct can only exist as part of a field construct, I believe. All the best, David -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/107#comment:8> 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.
