Dear Martin
Deprecating the units attribute for string and char variables (perhaps
int, too?) sounds like a good idea. Yet, I would still second Marc to at
least allow for a None value in the units attribute - as far as I
understand this wouldn't break the compatibility.
I agree, it
by the software.
all the best
mark
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Jim Biard
[jbi...@cicsnc.org]
Sent: 06 November 2014 20:15
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Hi.
Just out
...@reading.ac.uk
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Message-ID: 20141106173838.ga9...@met.reading.ac.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
One further thought: we could deprecate the units attribute for variables of
string and char type
Cc: Hedley, Mark; CF Metadata List
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Hi John
I think '?' is not a definition that is helpful to most users -- it is
more like an indication that the string -- the empty string in this case
for example -- has not provided a meaningful
...@cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Schultz,
Martin [m.schu...@fz-juelich.de]
Sent: 05 November 2014 07:57
To: 'cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu'
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates (unitless quantities)
Dear Mark and all,
thanks for this discussion and the motion to approach udunits
From: Jim Biard [jbi...@cicsnc.org]
Sent: 04 November 2014 17:45
To: Hedley, Mark; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Mark,
As I read the CF Conventions document, my conclusion is that CF currently
conflates the two concepts 'doesn't have units
'area_type' so far).
I hope this seems like a reasonable response.
From: Eizi TOYODA [toy...@gfd-dennou.org]
Sent: 31 October 2014 08:44
To: John Graybeal
Cc: Hedley, Mark; CF Metadata List
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Hi John
-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Jim Biard
[jbi...@cicsnc.org]
Sent: 31 October 2014 15:18
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Mark,
I'm not clear on what you are suggesting that udunits do with 'no_unit' or
'?'.
I
Jonathan,
In one case I am storing raw binary values from a satellite downlink.
Another example of this sort of case would be a variable where you are
storing flag values, particularly ones where you are using flag_masks.
The values are 'non-numerical' in that they are not directly
.
*From:* Eizi TOYODA [toy...@gfd-dennou.org]
*Sent:* 31 October 2014 08:44
*To:* John Graybeal
*Cc:* Hedley, Mark; CF Metadata List
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Hi John
I think '?' is not a definition that is helpful
Biard
[jbi...@cicsnc.org]
Sent: 31 October 2014 15:18
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Mark,
I'm not clear on what you are suggesting that udunits do with 'no_unit' or '?'.
I had thought that the desire was to be able to differentiate between a pure
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Mark,
I'm not clear on what you are suggesting that udunits do with
'no_unit' or '?'.
I had thought that the desire was to be able to differentiate between
a pure number (as you mention below) and a value (whether a string or
a bit
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Mark,
I agree that CF is currently ambiguous on this front, and I'm fine with
improving definitions going forward, but 'no_unit' smacks of the classic 'this
page intentionally left blank' found in government documents. I think it's
overkill
mark.hed...@metoffice.gov.uk
To: Jim Biard jbi...@cicsnc.org, cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Message-ID:
7819c496f4e10e47bcefbe74551aac9606f40...@exxcmpd1dag3.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk
Content-Type: text/plain
] on behalf of Jim
Biard [jbi...@cicsnc.org]
*Sent:* 30 October 2014 16:12
*To:* cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
CF says that if the units attribute is missing, then the quantity has no
units.
The Conventions document, section 3.1 says:
The units
@cgd.ucar.edu
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
CF says that if the units attribute is missing, then the quantity has no
units.
The Conventions document, section 3.1 says:
The units attribute is required for all variables that represent
dimensional quantities (except for boundary
.
From: Eizi TOYODA [toy...@gfd-dennou.org]
Sent: 31 October 2014 08:44
To: John Graybeal
Cc: Hedley, Mark; CF Metadata List
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Hi John
I think '?' is not a definition that is helpful to most users -- it is more
like
Hello CF
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Jonathan
Gregory [j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk]
Yes, there are some standard names which imply string values, as Karl says.
If the standard_name table says 1, that means the quantity is dimensionless,
so it's also
My preference is that one explicitly puts in the units. For dimensionless,
1 or is ok for udunits. If the units attribute isnt there, I assume
that the user forgot to specify it, so the units are unknown.
Im not sure what CF actually says, but it would be good to clarify.
John
On Thu, Oct 30,
CF says that if the units attribute is missing, then the quantity has no
units.
The Conventions document, section 3.1 says:
The|units|attribute is required for all variables that represent
dimensional quantities (except for boundary variables defined
inSection 7.1, Cell
, Mark mark.hed...@metoffice.gov.uk
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
Hello CF
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Jonathan
Gregory [j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk]
Yes, there are some
...@cicsnc.org]
Sent: 30 October 2014 16:12
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
CF says that if the units attribute is missing, then the quantity has no units.
The Conventions document, section 3.1 says:
The units attribute is required for all variables
it; whichever way seems better to people.
cheers
mark
--
*From:* CF-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Jim
Biard [jbi...@cicsnc.org]
*Sent:* 30 October 2014 16:12
*To:* cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] string valued
.
cheers
mark
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Jim Biard
[jbi...@cicsnc.org]
Sent: 30 October 2014 16:12
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
CF says that if the units attribute is missing, then the quantity has
To: Hedley, Mark mark.hed...@metoffice.gov.uk
CC: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] string valued coordinates
I understand that netCDF coordinate variables have to be strictly
monotonic, and no-one wants to define what this means for the general case
I understand that netCDF coordinate variables have to be strictly
monotonic, and no-one wants to define what this means for the general case
of strings; that is fine.
in CDM, monontonicity is required to make the 1D coordinate maps
invertible. For string valued coordinates, the equivilent
Hello CF
I understand that netCDF coordinate variables have to be strictly monotonic,
and no-one wants to define what this means for the general case of strings;
that is fine.
But I believe that I can create a CF auxiliary coordinate with string values
without any concern.
I am interested in
Mark,
The 'no units' case is covered by leaving off the units attribute.
Jim
On 10/3/14, 6:59 AM, Hedley, Mark wrote:
Hello CF
I understand that netCDF coordinate variables have to be strictly
monotonic, and no-one wants to define what this means for the general
case of strings; that is
On 2014-10-03, Jim Biard jbi...@cicsnc.org wrote:
The 'no units' case is covered by leaving off the units attribute.
Wouldn't that be in violation of the CF convention?
I was under the impression that _all_ dimensional quantities need that
attribute, and a coordinate would by its very nature
Ben,
Section 3.1 of the CF Standard says, The|units|attribute is required
for all variables that represent dimensional quantities. Also, Units
are not required for dimensionless quantities. A variable with no units
attribute is assumed to be dimensionless.
A string coordinate is not
Hi Mark,
One example I know of:
area_type is a string type variable with standard values taken from:
http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/27/src/area-type-table.xml
This was used in CMIP5. The units in the standard name table are given
as 1.
best regards,
Karl
On 10/3/14, 3:59
31 matches
Mail list logo
