Actually, in our case, the size is not our main motivation for a
machine-accessible CF compliance checker. Instead, it is motivated by our move
toward Test-Driven Development, which relies heavily on automated (i.e.,
scripted) tests.
We can probably figure out how to get the cfchecker package
Dear John
> 1) Example 7.11. Extreme statistics and spell-lengths
>
> climatology_bounds="2007-12-1 6:00", "2000-8-2 6:00";
>
> should be
>
> climatology_bounds="2007-12-1 6:00", "2008-3-1 6:00";
I agree.
> perhaps clearer as
>
> climatology_bounds="2007-12-1", "2008-3-1";
Could be, but
Dear Nan
> Here's an excerpt from a CDL for a typical moored station's data.
> dimensions:
Can't this be stored as a timeSeriesProfile feature? From table 9.1, feature i
in this case has data of dimensions (p,o), coordinates x y z(p,o) and t(p).
This is almost the same as your dimensions:
>
I like what you are suggesting Nan. Let's be sure we do it in a way
that is happy with both heights and depths.
On 2/28/2012 3:33 PM, Nan Galbraith wrote:
Hello all -
I'd been hoping that I would not outlive my ability to ignore the CF
FeatureTypes,
but apparently it's not to be. As a fallba
Hi Phil,
So far my role has simply been to package and deploy Rosalyn's cfchecker code,
therefore I really don't know to what extent it needs the real NetCDF.
I think an alternative checker (i.e. codebase) is a bad idea because they might
give contradictory results. I would suggest several opt
Etienne,
Yep, this occurred to me too. But people are unlikely to do it, IMHO.
Phil
> -Original Message-
> From: Etienne Tourigny [mailto:etourigny@gmail.com]
> Sent: 29 February 2012 15:12
> To: Bentley, Philip
> Cc: stephen.pas...@stfc.ac.uk; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: R
Perhaps an easy way to use the existing cf-checker remotely would be
to make a temporary netcdf file with all header information but with a
subset of the data?
If the dimension variable were kept then the monotonic tests could be done.
A quick method would be to use a utility link nco or cdo to su
Hi Stephen,
I may well be wrong, but I suspect that one of the reasons - perhaps the
main reason - why folks would like access to a stand-alone cfchecker
utility is the large size of their netcdf files. (It's certainly the
reason we use a local version.)
As you know only too well (from CMIP5), mo
Hi Christopher,
Are you looking for a way to run the cfchecker locally or submit checking
requests to one of the websites in a script?
I think both would be possible with a little help. The cfchecker is now
available on the Python Package Index at http://pypi.python.org/pypi/cfchecker.
It ne
