Dear Jonathan,
> Do you think the standard name alone is sufficient? Proposing a new attribute
> is more work than proposing a standard_name, since it means amending the CF
> standard. I can see there could be value in a relative_to attribute, but it
> might be an unnecessary complexity. I wonder what you and others think.
The standard name alone is sufficient for our case. I agree with you
that we should not add unnecessary complexity to the CF standard. I
think we will use the standard name 'time_offset'.
Best regards,
Maarten
On 02/02/2011 05:15 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Maarten
>
> What you write about pixeltime as an aux coord var (y,x) and your ncdump look
> sensible to me. I think that's all fine.
>
>> The standard_name time_offset (s) seems good to me. In the long name we
>> can add an explanation that this variable deals with the time offset for
>> each pixel.
>
> OK. So that is a definite proposal for a new standard name.
>
> Do you think the standard name alone is sufficient? Proposing a new attribute
> is more work than proposing a standard_name, since it means amending the CF
> standard. I can see there could be value in a relative_to attribute, but it
> might be an unnecessary complexity. I wonder what you and others think.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
--
Maarten Plieger
KNMI, R&D Information and Observation Technology, De Bilt
(t) +31 30 2206330
Received on Thu Feb 03 2011 - 02:14:06 GMT
