Version numbers are good for identifiers that may change and bad for ones that
shouldn't change.
I agree there may be multiple terms from different vocabularies to represent
each concept.
However, what we want to avoid is multiple terms from a single vocabulary for
the same concept.
E.g., if
On 2010-12-17 16:57, Christopher Barker wrote:
> I think the OP's question really is:
>
> should one use a different standard name for a predicted, rather than a
measured, quantity?
>
I think the answer is no, as I've seen all sorts of model output without
anything in the standard name indicati
Hi Karl,
The discussion concerning the introduction of the scalar coordinate
variable is available in the archive (July 2003 under the subject "size-one
axes"). There was never a decision to disallow the "bounds" attribute.
Although it could be more explicitly stated in the current document, I
t
Hello All.
I would be interested to hear if anyone can expand on the recent discussion of
standard names for predicted water level. In particular with regard to the
several variations of water level data that I am storing in netCDF format, but
for which I am not yet able to comfortably assign s
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:40 AM, John Graybeal wrote:
>
> The proliferation/versioning topic was one we thought hard about in MMI,
> and there are some writeups on the site that may be of interest to a few.
> [1] It includes a bit more detail than we have pursued here.
>
> In case anyone cares:
