Hi Brian, Jonathan,
Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this. I think your responses to
Burkhardt have converged on a good solution. Has Steve Hankin
weighed in?
Karl
Brian Eaton wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> > However, maybe in the particular case of the rotated pole, we could decide
> > now that what we have just developed is OK. To make that decision now would
> > help Burkhardt write his data, I imagine. Rotated pole is also the only
> > mapping that we use in the Hadley Centre models, so it would help us too.
> > Shall we do that?
>
> I guess the only reason for holding off would be to determine whether there
> is an existing set of keywords that we might want to use. On the other
> hand, if that circumstance arises we could always accept both the new and
> the old keywords for the rotated pole grid. So it's fine with me to move
> ahead with this.
>
> I propose we add a section 6.3 "Grid transformations". Section 6 seems
> like the right place since this is optional coordinate metadata.
>
> grid_latitude and grid_longitude are good names.
>
> I'll try to write this up in the next few weeks, but can't promise anything
> before July.
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Fri Jun 07 2002 - 09:51:30 BST
