Hi folks,
The final para of section 2.5.1 of the CF conventions document describes
the use of the _FillValue (or missing_value) attribute in the case of
data packed using the scale-and-offset method. What is not clear - at
least to me - is what the preferred application behaviour should be in
the
Sorry if this is an ignorant/newbie question, but can I ask if the grammar for
CF std_names implicitly provides a check on duplicates?
Simon
-Original Message-
From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk]
Sent: Saturday, 22 September 2012 4:27 PM
To: John Graybeal; Cameron-smith, Phili
Dear Martin, Roy et al.
> I understand exactly what you want - or at least I thing I do. I think that
> you would like to enter a URL representing the concept 'carbon monoxide' and
> get back a document giving you all the Standard Names pertaining to carbon
> monoxide. Am I right?
I apprecia
Hello Jonathan,
I'm finding myself in total agreement with you and hope to start demonstrate
over the coming weeks how vocabulary server technology can cover both Martin's
use case and the use case for whic you did your work.
Cheers, Roy.
From: Jonathan
Hello Simon,
If you're referring to syntactic duplicates then providing the controlled
vocabularies covering the grammar elements are well managed the issue is
addressed.
If you're referring to semantic duplicates (i.e. multiple Standard Names built
from synonyms) then no, but there are opinio
Hi Simon, et al.,
The question of semantic duplicates is something that CF has strongly tried to
avoid.In a system where we control the grammar and vocabulary rather than
the std_names, we would either need to design it so that semantic duplicates
are impossible, or find a way to link equi
Semantic duplicates is my concern.
I understand your assertion about the linked data environment, but note that it
is only of no consequence if everyone is doing reasoning.
Simon
-Original Message-
From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012 2:33 AM
T
