m3/kg.
Thanks for you help.
Regards,
Glenn
-Original Message-
From: Cameron-smith, Philip [mailto:cameronsmi...@llnl.gov]
Sent: 01 June 2011 17:46
To: Comiskey, Glenn; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: RE: Re: [CF-metadata] udunits 1 or 2 for CF?
Hi Glenn,
I would interpret 'm-3 kg&#
June 01, 2011 9:22 AM
> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] udunits 1 or 2 for CF?
>
> Hi All,
>
> As a new comer to the world of metorological/oceanographic datasets, I
> am currently reading up on a number of subject matters including the
> use
> o
Hi All,
As a new comer to the world of metorological/oceanographic datasets, I
am currently reading up on a number of subject matters including the use
of the UDUNITS package and the use of version 1 or 2 for CF conformance.
As a result of a URL kindly provided by Mike Grant, Plymouth Marine
Labo
This seems like a good solution to me. Maybe a recommendation (rather
than a requirement) should be added that full units names & prefixes are
used, with a note mentioning that in some cases there may be
incompatibilities when using symbols.
Cheers,
Andrew Clegg
Steve Emmerson wrote:
CF-conv
Just a couple of items:
1. Russ Rew reminded me that it's Fortran 2003 that supports the
relatively easy creation of a Fortran interface to a C library. Using
this feature for UDUNITS-2 would, therefore, have consequences for the
Fortran crowd: they would have to use a Fortran 2003 conforming co
CF-conventioners,
I recommend using full unit names and prefixes in unit specifications
for just this reason: unit symbols and prefix symbols can be ambiguous,
whereas unit names and prefix names are not.
The UDUNITS-2 package will format a binary unit into a string
representation using either sy
Bruno PIGUET wrote:
Le mercredi 03 mars 2010 à 15:10 +, Andrew Clegg a écrit :
[...] In udunits1, I used 'ukg m^-3', which
udunits2 rejects as invalid. udunits2 accepts 'mg m^-3' (which is much
better!), but udunits1 interprets this as to do with gravity. Because of
this, I can't includ
Le mercredi 03 mars 2010 à 15:10 +, Andrew Clegg a écrit :
> [...] In udunits1, I used 'ukg m^-3', which
> udunits2 rejects as invalid. udunits2 accepts 'mg m^-3' (which is much
> better!), but udunits1 interprets this as to do with gravity. Because of
> this, I can't include a unit string w
Dear all
I think CF should specify udunits-2 as well. We could could clarify that in
the convention as correcting a defect, I think.
Best wishes
Jonathan
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo
Hi all,
This is too bad that udunits is not backward compatible. I vote for CF
to recommend using the latest available udunits library.
Best regards,
Karl
On 03-Mar-10 7:10 AM, Andrew Clegg wrote:
Hi all,
I'm running into some problems regarding units in CF-compliant files.
Up until now I
Hi all,
I'm running into some problems regarding units in CF-compliant files. Up
until now I've been using udunits 1 to check units, but I recently tried
the CF checker which uses udunits2. There are some unit strings which
are valid in one but not the other. In particular, I am dealing with
11 matches
Mail list logo
