Hi Jonathan,
I think that your case (iv) is what I am dealing with. For NWP applications I think cases (i) and (iv) will be most common. Case (i) applies to a single NWP run with multiple lead times, case (iv) applies to multiple NWP runs, each run having multiple (but fixed) lead times.
As it happens, my files (equivalent to your case (iv)?) now pass the CF 1.3 compliance checker with no errors, provided the "T" axis is assigned to the basetime (equivalent to analysis or reference time) coordinate.
I think for developers it is also convenient to have examples (e.g. CDLs) illustrating how each case would be implemented in practise ... multiple analysis times, validity times and lead times can quickly get confusing.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2009 19:51
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Storing multiple NWP model runs in a NetCDF - CFfile [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear all
I think we excluded the axis attribute from auxiliary coords because it is
intended for the 1D coord variables. However we didn't allow for the special
case of a scalar coord variable, which is really equivalent to a size-1 1D
coord variable. I agree with Karl that scalar coord variables should be allowed
to have the axis attribute.
There is a summary of previous discussions of 2D time coordinates at
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2006/001008.html
- itself now 2.5 years ago! It would be good to state some more explicit
recommendations in the standard. How does that summary compare with what John
and Tim have in mind now?
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Thu Jan 08 2009 - 15:53:51 GMT
