Re: [CF-metadata] Pre-proposal for "charset"

CF section 2.2 already clarifies that it is the "last" (AKA "rightmost") dimension that specifies the maximum number of characters and is collapsed to interpret the char array as a String array: > > An n-dimensional array of strings must be implemented as a character array > of dimension

Re: [CF-metadata] Discussion of technical CF issues as GitHub issues?

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Signell, Richard wrote: > found it extremely challenging to ferret out the technical thread > of discussion from the numerous email threads, further obfuscated due > to mishmash of top posting, in line postings and quoted previous > emails. >

Re: [CF-metadata] new standard names request

BEGIN RANT This is the kind of stuff that I don't like: putting additional (and unnecessary) semantics into the unit specification. "ppm" is bad enough (1e-6 would be better) but *volume*! The attributes of a physical quantity are attributes of the quantity itself -- *not* its unit. If a

[CF-metadata] new standard names request

I would like to add two standard names for the NOAA GMD OZWV group's weather balloon data: name: water_vapor_mixing_ratio description: The atmospheric water vapor mixing ratio in parts per million by volume. units: ppmv name: ozone_mixing_ratio description: The atmospheric ozone mixing ratio in

[CF-metadata] Pre-proposal for "charset"

Dear Bob That's right, there doesn't have to be an instance dimension. The problem with the file is that the variable you're concerned with (timeseries) isn't linked to any of the other variables, so its purpose is not clear. Best wishes Jonathan - Forwarded message from Bob Simons - NOAA

Re: [CF-metadata] Discussion of technical CF issues as GitHub issues?

Dear All, I can see the sense for the technical issues, but for Standard Name proposal discussions I would prefer to keep to the current system of e-mail plus the CEDA thread-tracking system unless Alison would like to see that replaced by GitHub. Having e-mail thread 'clarification' split

Re: [CF-metadata] Discussion of technical CF issues as GitHub issues?

I support this change. I struggle with email for the reasons Rich listed. On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:33 AM Sean Arms wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:57 AM David Blodgett wrote: > > I think this is a fantastic suggestion. > > > On Feb 27, 2017, at

Re: [CF-metadata] Discussion of technical CF issues as GitHub issues?

+1 On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:57 AM David Blodgett wrote: > I think this is a fantastic suggestion. > > > On Feb 27, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Signell, Richard wrote: > > > > I was trying to catch up on "Pre-proposal for charset" conversation > > and found it

Re: [CF-metadata] Discussion of technical CF issues as GitHub issues?

I think this is a fantastic suggestion. > On Feb 27, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Signell, Richard wrote: > > I was trying to catch up on "Pre-proposal for charset" conversation > and found it extremely challenging to ferret out the technical thread > of discussion from the numerous

[CF-metadata] Discussion of technical CF issues as GitHub issues?

I was trying to catch up on "Pre-proposal for charset" conversation and found it extremely challenging to ferret out the technical thread of discussion from the numerous email threads, further obfuscated due to mishmash of top posting, in line postings and quoted previous emails. I couldn't