Hi Chris:
Im not positive I understand the question but Ill try to answer anyway:
Profiles are allowed to specify time along the vertical dimension. They
must have a single lat/lon coordinate associated with the entire
profile, but this could be a nominal value for the purpose of searching,
and theres no problem adding lat/lon coordinates at each vertical point,
which specialized software knows about.
If the horiz drift is truly significant, probably best to make it into a
trajectory. The categories are a bit blurry, as you see.
Regards,
John
Little, Chris wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> Just a minor, naive question about this proposal. I may have
> misunderstood or missed something by not being a NetCDF user.
>
> How do your structures handle profiles that are really near vertical
> trajectories? Many atmospheric ascents/profiles are now being used
> with explicit time, vertical and horizontal coordinates, as the extent
> of the profile (>10km vertically, ~2 hours, ~ 100km horizontally) is
> now significant compared to current models. I expect the same argument
> could be made for some oceanographic profiles.
>
> If my question is sensible, please reply via the newsgroups if you wish.
>
> Best wishes, Chris
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:*
> cf-netcdf-1.0.swg-bounces+chris.little=metoffice.gov.uk at lists.opengeospatial.org
> [mailto:cf-netcdf-1.0.swg-bounces+chris.little=metoffice.gov.uk at lists.opengeospatial.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Ben Domenico
> *Sent:* 09 November 2009 15:59
> *To:* CF-netCDF SWG
> *Subject:* [CF-NetCDF-1.0.swg] Fwd: [CF-metadata] CF point
> observationConventions ready for review
>
> Hello,
>
> The message below from John Caron points to a revised version of the
> proposed CF Conventions for point observations. Note that a
> preliminary implementation has been developed.
>
> -- Ben
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *John Caron* <caron at unidata.ucar.edu
> <mailto:caron at unidata.ucar.edu>>
> Date: Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:02 PM
> Subject: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>
>
> I have complete a new version of the CF point observation Conventions at:
>
> https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/PointObservationConventions
>
> Discussion is at:
>
> https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/37
>
> I have incorporated various feedback from the past year, and made a
> preliminary implementation to be sure that a generic application can
> distinguish the various cases without human intervention.
>
> I have tried to simplify, esp in the station profile and section
> feature types, where the combinations of options got too complex. The
> document is now explicit about all possible representations. The use
> of missing values is also clarified.
>
> While the document is rather long, if you manage to wade through it
> you'll see that the patterns of use keep repeating and are mostly
> regular. Showing full examples I think is the best way to prevent
> misunderstandings.
>
> I did make enough changes that anyone who wrote files using the
> previous version should check to see whats changed. Apologies for that.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu <mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 10 2009 - 11:13:00 GMT
