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): Hello, all, Whilst it is great that the data model is going through a phase of being discussed, before alternative models are presented, I think that it would be sensible to agree that the ''proposed'' model is not correct, if that is the case. We should also keep in mind that the data model is intended to a minimal, logical representation of CF as it currently stands, and so shouldn't get tied up with CF-netCDF syntax and organization. Some good points have been raised about the name of the construct ("transform"). What if it were called a "Coordinate reference system construct" instead? That seems reasonable to me. Earlier in this thread, I posted an [comment:18 example] of how the transform (CRS?) construct was easily able to encapsulate the case of multiple grid_mappings. If there are counter examples where the proposed construct can not store the information and relationships, that would, I think, be very useful. Many thanks and all the best, David -- Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/107#comment:38> 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.
