Jonathan,
I think we need to use the new CF-governance system (whatever it may be) to farm out the fine details of this stuff to the specialist users/providers. I am not a specialist in any of them but it doesn't seem that there are better alternatives to NetCDF being used significantly by the wider community (unless we talk BUFR, but that's not an option for data analysis etc).
Cheers,
Ag
-----Original Message-----
From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu on behalf of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: Fri 27/05/2005 11:40 AM
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Thoughts about CF future
Dear Ag
The radar data and Mike McCann's recent standard name request both raised the
issue of how to handle "measured" parameters, which are rather specific to
the instrument or technique, and cannot necessarily be named as geolocated
properties of the "real world" such as a model might simulate, or such as would
be contained in a gridded dataset intended for comparison with models. Perhaps
the trajectory and station data raise a similar issue.
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Fri May 27 2005 - 05:14:45 BST
