Can we propose a definition of 'time_offset'? I might want to suggest something a little narrower than time_offset. I can anticipate systems that include a time_offset variable that is not at all the same meaning as the time_offset being proposed here. (Depending, of course, on how generally the definition is worded.)
John
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
John Graybeal <mailto:jgraybeal at ucsd.edu>
phone: 858-534-2162
System Development Manager
Ocean Observatories Initiative Cyberinfrastructure Project:
http://ci.oceanobservatories.org
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project:
http://marinemetadata.org
Received on Thu Feb 03 2011 - 10:50:36 GMT
