Re: [cf-pointobsconvention] Draft 2

  • Subject: Re: [cf-pointobsconvention] Draft 2
  • From: John Caron <caron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:59:44 -0600


John Graybeal wrote:
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.

Jonathan was talking about an optional "standard name", not variable names.


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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For list information or to unsubscribe,  visit: 
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/