Hi Christine,
Christiane Textor wrote:
> Hi Martina and Jonathan,
>
> I wish to only comment on cell metrics that where already discussed
> within the CF community, goto:
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2006/subject.html
> and search for cell metrics
In particular see Karl's response
(
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2006/001096.html):
> I agree with Jonathan that since it may not always be possible to
> determine which cell_areas go with each field stored in a file (when
> more than one grid is found in the file), the cell_measures attribute
> should alway be defined.
>
> CF enabled software should not be expected to determine the
> cell_measures that go with each field by examining the standard names
> and grids.
The cell measures mechanism defined as part of CF-1.0 (7.2) provides a
clear way to specify grid cell extents. Why would this not be used for
CF compliant datasets?
>
> >area_of_gridbox
> We agreed on 'cell_area' in previous discussions.
>
> It seems to me that it is useful to define variables such as
> >latitude_of_the_bounds
> >longitude_of_the_bounds
> just because people use them.
And specification of cell bounds is explicitly covered by the cell
boundaries mechanism of CF-1.0 (7.1). Again why would a CF compliant
dataset not use this mechanism?
To simply say "we should allow this too because it is what some people
already do" defeats the purpose of having a metadata standard in the
first place. Attaining standards compliance inevitably requires making
some changes to how you do things in order to align with the standard.
regards
slw
--
Simon Wood
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, NZ
simon.wood at niwa.co.nz
http://www.niwa.co.nz
Received on Wed Dec 13 2006 - 14:52:46 GMT
