Dear Jonathan,
while it makes sense what you say, the lines are somewhat blurred and
this is the philosophical fabric which makes it sometimes hard to communicate
the usefulness of CF to others. It may be about time to begin thinking about
CF-2.0 and initiate a discussion which should
Dear Martin
I am sure that most things could be done differently and many of them could
be done better, but we have to recognise that few people have much time to
spend on defining the CF standard, because it's a community effort with very
little devoted resource. We can certainly consider ways
Hi Jonathan,
I agree with these principles. I think we might phrase 3 and 4 as balanced
alternatives:
CF may incorporate an outside convention into it when the following
conditions hold:
1. The semantics of the convention are important to the CF community.
2. The convention is
Here is an example of a projection (modis sinusoidal) that is not
supported by CF:
PROJCS[unnamed,
GEOGCS[Unknown datum based upon the custom spheroid,
DATUM[Not_specified_based_on_custom_spheroid,
SPHEROID[Custom spheroid,6371007.181,0]],
PRIMEM[Greenwich,0],
Here is an example of a lon/lat definition (no PROJCS) with TOWGS84
EPSG code 4618 (SAD69 datum used in South America)
OGC WKT :
GEOGCS[SAD69,
DATUM[South_American_Datum_1969,
SPHEROID[GRS 1967 Modified,6378160,298.25,
AUTHORITY[EPSG,7050]],
Original Message
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposed addition to CF principles: outside
conventions
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:39:13 -0700
From: Seth McGinnis mcgin...@ucar.edu
To: John Caron ca...@unidata.ucar.edu
Hi John,
I'm generally in favor of this
