[CF-metadata] curvilinear cartesian coordinates case

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:14:22 +0000

Dear Rich

> I also would vote for Bert's original suggestion of attaching the
> grid_mapping directly to
> the coordinates that use that mapping.
Can you explain why that seems better to you than (my) alternative of naming
2D projection coordinates in the grid_mapping variable instead of making them
auxiliary coordinate variables? The reasons why I prefer this at present are
that the grid_mapping attribute stays where it is, that it serves as a single
place to find the information that defines the mappings, and that there is no
redundancy. Perhaps other people have other ideas.

> I'm wondering how we move forward with this issue. We formed a
> CF-Conventions Committee, and would it be time to have the commmitee
> "convene" and decide if and how this should be implemented?
In the past, we have made decisions by consensus. The idea in the white paper
is that this should still be so. That is, by public debate we should try to
reach an agreement that everyone's happy with. It's better to do that, even
though it is harder work, than vote on things. Majority decisions where there
is a substantial minority should be uncommon.

We are in limbo regarding the committees. If I understand correctly (I wasn't
there), the WGCM agreed to the committees but has not chosen members for the
CF panel. Karl generously volunteered to chair the conventions committee, so
I think it's up to him to suggest how we should proceed (sorry, Karl!).

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Thu Nov 30 2006 - 11:14:22 GMT