On 3/18/2011 9:17 AM, Bob Simons wrote:
On 3/17/2011 5:20 PM, cf-metadata-requ...@cgd.ucar.edu wrote:
From my POV, the problem is that users need more expressiveness
for the
calendar time. I certainly do. For yearly data, "years since base_date
by calendar field" (or whatever) is consistent, simple and elegant.
UDUNITS defines year, sidereal_year, tropical_year, common_year,
leap_year, Julian_year, gregorian_year, and work_year.
Couldn't UDUNITS and CF also define "calendar_year" and
"calendar_month", which wouldn't have fixed single values but which
would have precise definitions which could be used in calendar
calculations? (Also, their variables would be restricted to integer
values.)
That would allow the current CF definition of "months_since" and
"years_since" to stand unchanged, and add a way to specify calendar
months or years.
Wouldn't that be consistent, simpler, and more elegant?
Hi Bob:
this seems reasonable to me. it implies that hours and days remain a
fixed length in seconds for all calendars. Im thinking maybe thats ok -
anyone who is worried about leap seconds should encode the time and time
duration of their data in seconds. they dont really want to count on
another library to get this right.
anyway, i like this idea. Im taking the liberty of forwarding it to the
group discussion.
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
