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 markh): Replying to [comment:8 davidhassell]: > > 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? We need to capture the information on !DomainAxis relations with cell measures, no doubt. My intent with this suggestion is that the necessary details may be captured in one place, perhaps in the Field or !DomainAxis description, to avoid repeating text in multiple sections and possible inconsistency. Where I said 'It is up to a Field to decide whether a !CellMeasure is consistent and able to be used.' I was suggesting that the scope of this discussion is the responsibility of the Field. > 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. The term orphaned was not intended to indicate anything important here, I am not advocating change, only trying to indicate the correct scope for this information may lie elsewhere (encapsulation: a !CellMeasure does not know about the Field which contains it). I am saying that we will need this definition for !CellMeasures, !DimCoords, !AuxCoords and maybe other things, so lets do it once, right and not repeat ourselves. (A minor detail point: these constructs do not 'contain an ordered set of domain axes' they are referenced by them; I don't think we should use that particular wording, it hints at a relation which I don't think exists.) > I'm not sure what is being added by the word "typed", here. Is "numeric" not sufficient? "typed" indicates a specific type of array, for example, Int, Float. I think it is expected for one data type to exist across the whole values array: 'A numeric array of metric values .... The array must all be of the same data type.' I thought this information could be fully captured by stating: 'A typed numeric array of metric values.' I am content with either wording. -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/107#comment:9> 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.
