Jonathan,
I support you in principal. But not knowing of which points you were
thinking, can I ask you to address situations in which the observation
has units that are not in UD_Units?
I am happy to make the 'raw_units' or 'alternate_units' attribute a
separate proposal, if you think that is the best way to proceed. It
will definitely be necessary to support observational data, of both
science and instrumental flavors.
John
On Mar 12, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I think we should consider some particular use-cases and try to be
> as much like
> standard names for geophysical parameters as we can in our treatment
> of these
> unprocessedd quantities. I would suggest not deciding in advance
> that we have
> to treat them in different ways, because it's best to minimise the
> complexity
> of the convention. It's often tempting to regard something as a new
> case and
> invent new conventions for it, but it may be easier in the end to
> find a way to
> express it using structures we already have.
>
> 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 Mar 12 2009 - 10:54:15 GMT
