This message came from the CF Trac system. Do not reply. Instead, enter your
comments in the CF Trac system at http://kitt.llnl.gov/trac/.
#107: CF Data Model 1.7
-----------------------------+------------------------------
Reporter: markh | Owner: cf-conventions@…
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: medium | Milestone:
Component: cf-conventions | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
-----------------------------+------------------------------
\
\
\
\
\
\
Comment (by markh):
Replying to [comment:62 biard]:
> As I read the definition and usage of formula_terms, I find that it is
'''entirely and only''' a description of how to combine the values of a
unitless coordinate variable with values from other variables to produce
coordinate values that have units. It is possible that this "resultant
coordinate" could be georeferenced, but that is something else. It is
true that it is meaningless to associate a CRS with a unitless coordinate
variable if you don't provide a description of how to get to values that
can be georeferenced, but this doesn't mean that a mathematical transform
equates on any level with a declaration of a CRS.
I agree with this perspective. I think two simple, flexible types for the
data model will be a better long term solution here than one, more
complicated, combined type.
I have written more on my reasoning, but this turned out far too long to
post as a comment on the ticket, and Jim has put it far more succinctly
than I have been able to. I have dropped my additional thoughts on a wiki
page instead:
[http://kitt.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/markhDataModelNotesCRS
http://kitt.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/markhDataModelNotesCRS]
\
\
\
--
Ticket URL: <http://kitt.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/107#comment:64>
CF Metadata <http://kitt.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.
