Dear Jonathan,
Yes, I share your concern about redundant metadata, but in this case
the attributes are providing a useful summary that would otherwise
take significant time to compute in the general case. However, one
could argue that this calculation could be done at the application
level as an "added value" step, rather than by data providers. If the
attributes are present but wrong then this could be very misleading
(like all other attributes I guess).
Yes, more views would be useful!
Cheers, Jon
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Jonathan Gregory
<j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Jon
>
> I would prefer the simplest scheme. I am not sure really whether it is a good
> idea to have redundant metadata though - we usually try to avoid that. It would
> be useful to have more views.
>
> I don't think this would belong in cell_methods, which describes what
> statistical reduction has been applied to the data.
>
> It is best to open a trac ticket when there is a precise proposal to be
> debated i.e. what changes are to be made in the wording of the conventions
> and conformance documents.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Jon Blower Tel: +44 118 378 5213 (direct line)
Technical Director Tel: +44 118 378 8741 (ESSC)
Reading e-Science Centre Fax: +44 118 378 6413
ESSC Email: jdb at mail.nerc-essc.ac.uk
University of Reading
3 Earley Gate
Reading RG6 6AL, UK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Mon Jun 09 2008 - 10:05:03 BST
