On 10/10/2012 6:36 AM, Jim Biard wrote:
John,
I agree that there is no ambiguity in the original dataset. I was just
pointing out a scenario in which the difficulty mentioned by Phil in his
original post would manifest itself. The methodology referenced by Russ
won't handle it. If you (for
John,
I agree that there is no ambiguity in the original dataset. I was just
pointing out a scenario in which the difficulty mentioned by Phil in his
original post would manifest itself. The methodology referenced by Russ won't
handle it. If you (for reasons beyond your control) have a packe
Hi Jim:
_FillValue/missing_value refers to the packed value, so theres no
ambiguity in the original dataset. It is best to make sure its outside
the range of real values, but even if not, one just has to search for
that exact bit pattern.
If someone rewrites the data, its their responsibilit
Hi.
Assuming you have the luxury of specifying your _FillValue and/or
missing_value, I agree that this isn't a big deal. However, I am working with
data where the project has defined fill/missing values that are wholly within
the range of possible values (NPP satellite data). The approach def
ribute of the same
> name. All this would be optional of course.
>
> Regards,
> Phil
>
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Russ Rew [mailto:r...@unidata.ucar.edu]
> > Sent: 26 September 2012 04:08
> > To: Bentley, Philip
> > Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.uca
Original Message-
> From: Russ Rew [mailto:r...@unidata.ucar.edu]
> Sent: 26 September 2012 04:08
> To: Bentley, Philip
> Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Choice of fill value for unpacked data
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> > The final para of se
I agree that it is best to follow standard netcdf recommendations when
possible and avoid extra metadata which will not be supported outside
of CF (where possible and practical).
Etienne
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Russ Rew wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
>> The final para of section 2.5.1 of the CF c
Hi Phil,
> 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
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
