[cf-pointobsconvention] Draft 2

[John Graybeal]

That seems useful for models but not so much for observations (which 
typically don't conform to, say, atmospheric surfaces).  More to the 
point, for me at least, the conflation of location with variable name 
-- I have to name this varable one thing if I measure it here, but 
then I move my instrument and my variable is now called something else 
-- is not a viable general-purpose mechanism for observing systems.

John

At 5:39 PM +0100 9/18/07, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>Dear John
>
>> > Ok, we can recommend but not require. Do you think "surface" is
>> > reasonable to assume when z is missing?
>>
>> No, just because Z is missing you can't assume that it's at the surface.
>> It could be something like "tropopause" and just that there is no
>> additional data to set that reference.
>
>In CF, data on particular surfaces that aren't defined by particular coord
>variables has this intended in the standard name e.g. "X_at_tropopause"
>or "X_at_sea_level".
>
>Cheers
>
>Jonathan
>_______________________________________________
>cf-pointobsconvention mailing list
>cf-pointobsconvention at unidata.ucar.edu
>For list information or to unsubscribe,  visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/


-- 
----------
John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Initiative: http://marinemetadata.org   ||  
Shore Side Data System: http://www.mbari.org/ssds