On 12/12/2012 11:06 PM, Steve Hankin wrote:
the topic of how to encode uncertainties is opening up within OGC in the
attached email. The work under discussion here builds on CF 1.5 as a
normative standard and contains a CF 1.5 data model in UML (Figure 1).
At a glance it is apparent that
Dear John
I have prototyped similar functionality in the CDM, documented here:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf-java/CDM/CalendarDateTime.html
Thanks for this. I recall the earlier discussion and I think what you have
implemented would be a good extension to CF, namely
* Optional
Cecelia
I support 1) mostly for backward compatibility. I would also strongly
encourage but not demand that users change their base dates to after 1800
when it makes sense to do so.
And, I (again) want to make sure that LTMs and their time values are
addressed before any decisions are made as to
Hi Jonathan:
On 12/17/2012 10:51 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear John
I have prototyped similar functionality in the CDM, documented here:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf-java/CDM/CalendarDateTime.html
Thanks for this. I recall the earlier discussion and I think what you have
Dear Steve
This isn't the central issue, but I wonder if I have missed your point. I
agree that there is a gap in the legal dates in the real-world mixed Julian-
Gregorian calendar, but this is just an inconvenient problem of translation,
isn't it? There is no discontinuity in real-world time!
On 12/17/2012 10:22 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear Steve
This isn't the central issue, but I wonder if I have missed your point. I
agree that there is a gap in the legal dates in the real-world mixed Julian-
Gregorian calendar, but this is just an inconvenient problem of translation,
isn't
Cecelia
I think a solution shouldn't break current files which followed what had
been a standard for a long time (however ill-advised the standard was).
I don't have a good sense of what might break if the standard changed in
terms of software so I can' speak for all users but I do know many
I think a solution shouldn't break current files which followed what had
been a standard for a long time (however ill-advised the standard was). I
don't have a good sense of what might break if the standard changed in terms
of software so I can' speak for all users but I do know many people
Hi Cathy:
I think that you are using backwards compatible in a different way.
The current proposal(s) would not change files that are written with
:Conventions=CF-1.x, where x = 6. Files with x 6 could still use
the (ill-advised) old way if they want to, by putting an explicit
calendar
Hi Chris:
On 12/17/2012 4:50 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:
I think a solution shouldn't break current files which followed what had
been a standard for a long time (however ill-advised the standard was). I
don't have a good sense of what might break if the standard changed in terms
of
10 matches
Mail list logo
