Dear CF maintainers,
I would like to acknowledge that we also are interested in similar
variable names as posted by mr. Martin Boettcher. The subject of the
previous post was:
[CF-metadata] [lc-cci] proposal for new CF standard names for land cover
observation and classification
In
Dear Andrew
ERROR (4): Axis attribute is not allowed for auxillary coordinate variables.
I don't get this error with the Vector approach. It looks like the
checker thinks
my scalar lat, lon, time are 'auxilliary coordinate variables' and
axis attributes
are not allowed on these. Is the
Dear Richard
The CF definitions of discrete sampling geometries define the trajectory
feature type as a series of data points along a path through space with
monotonically increasing times. This is a stricter stance than the usual CF
coordinate definition of ordered monotonically. What was
Dear Dr Winsemius
I would like to acknowledge that we also are interested in similar
variable names as posted by mr. Martin Boettcher. The subject of the
previous post was:
[CF-metadata] [lc-cci] proposal for new CF standard names for land
cover observation and classification
I wonder if
On 4/30/2012 8:40 PM, andrew walsh wrote:
Hi John and CF-Metadata list,
Based on your earlier advice I decided using the Scalar way to represent
the coordinate lat, long and time rather than Vector way i.e lat(lat0,
lon(lon), time(time)
mainly for reason of simplicity.
the correct other
Richard, Jonathan, et. al.,
As the famed Henning piece on CORBA stated -- in standards committees
no is a preferable answer to yes all other things considered. More
generality can often lead to less interoperability in CF or other data
standards.
Having CF time axes that run backwards
On 5/1/2012 9:02 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Richard
The CF definitions of discrete sampling geometries define the trajectory feature type as a series of
data points along a path through space with monotonically increasing times. This is a stricter stance than the
usual CF coordinate
Dear Steve,
Having CF time axes that run backwards will break a lot of software.
It will be a net disruption to interoperability.
It seems to me that it will only break the software if that software
is used, and that CF-netCDF is being excluded from a valid use. I
wonder if it is better to use
Dear Steve
As the famed Henning piece on CORBA stated -- in standards
committees no is a preferable answer to yes all other things
considered. More generality can often lead to less
interoperability in CF or other data standards.
I think that's too negative myself. CF is successful partly
Hi Jim,
Yes, thats correct. If you see the attached CDL in earlier email we have used
coordinates
attributes on measured variables e.g
temperature:coordinates = time latitude longitude pressure
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jim Biard
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Sent:
10 matches
Mail list logo