Dear Jonathan,
I am happy with your suggestion below, and it seems sensible to create the
terminology to describe scalar coordinates.
"scalar coordinate variables" seems like a good name.
Ag
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk]
> Sent: 22 July 2003 23:25
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] size-one axes
>
>
> Dear Brian and Ag
>
> I had not thought of allowing the size-one coordinate
> variables to be scalars.
> I agree, this is even simpler. We may need a new term for
> them as they would
> no longer be coordinate variables in the Unidata sense. We
> could call them
> "scalar coordinate variables".
>
> If COARDS compliance is not thought to be an issue, I am
> quite happy to do
> this for xyzt as well. I agree, this is the most common case,
> and we want to
> encourage data-writers to supply the information. Variables
> are much better
> than attributes, I think, because they can themselves have essential
> attributes such as units and bounds.
>
> I agree with Brian that the existing coordinates attribute is
> OK to use for
> this; I don't think we need a special one.
>
> The example becomes:
>
> dimensions:
> lon=96;
> lat=73;
> forecast_time=3;
> variables:
> float LWflux(forecast_time,lat,lon);
> LWflux:coordinates="wavelength analysis_time";
> float lon(lon);
> float lat(lat);
> double forecast_time(forecast_time);
> double analysis_time;
> float wavelength;
>
> Does that look good?
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
Received on Wed Jul 23 2003 - 00:46:04 BST
