Dear all,
Mea culpa.
Due to a mistake in my own software, I was the one writing 'shifted' X and Y values in my netCDF
files. Although they were never explicitly named, the software development team deserves my
apologies :-/. It took me some time to investigate and make sure that it was my mistake, which is
why I did not contribute to the discussion yesterday.
This being said, I find that the text in ticket 44 clarifies things by giving a definition for what
should be the values of the X and Y datasets and acknowledging that applications can make use of
them as center points. Although a software bug originated this discussion, I am in favor of
including the text in ticket 44.
Jonathan, I would understand if you prefer a "statu quo" (cancel ticket 44) as, until proved
otherwise, no software application was misled by the current version of the CF document.
Sorry for the extra work as well as extra volume on the list,
Thomas
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear all
>
> In view of our general agreement, I have just proposed to add some text to
> the CF standard in ticket 44. I've proposed this as a defect, because it
> doesn't change the standard, just clarifies it. Please have a look. If anyone
> objects, it can't be accepted as a defect, but if you think it's OK but that
> the wording should be improved, that's fine - please make suggestions in the
> ticket.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Wed Jan 28 2009 - 03:54:16 GMT
