m
Biard
Sent: 02 April 2013 21:19
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Cc: Jonathan Gregory
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] interplay of standard name modifiers, cell_methods
-- is there a problem?
Jonathan,
You haven't been unclear about how we got into the state we are currently in.
We got to now by a
Jonathan,
You haven't been unclear about how we got into the state we are currently in.
We got to now by adding bits here and there as needs arose without always
thinking about the implications for the whole system down the road (which you
did a great job of describing). A lot of good work ha
Dear all
Jim asked,
"As some examples of the confusing situation we have now, why do we have a
separate word modifier number_of_observations instead of a
number_of_observations_of_X transformation modifier? Why don't we have
variance_of_X or anomaly_of_X transformations (or separate word modifie
Steve,
I'd say we have a problem. I think your first-cut solution is probably too
minimalist, but it would be better than the current situation.
Grace and peace,
Jim
Jim Biard
Research Scholar
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites
Remote Sensing and Applications Division
National C
On 4/2/2013 1:13 AM, Cameron-smith, Philip wrote:
Hi Steve,
I think your suggestion has merit. One question is : Would your
suggestion make any other changes, eg to std_name modifiers or
cell_methods?
Hi Philip,
Ken has pointed out that our discussions are clouding the specific
guidan
