On 3/21/2011 11:55 AM, Karl Taylor wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I haven't had time to follow all the discussion in detail, but in
> general I think CF should not add additional complexity unless the
> current way of encoding time is incomplete. As far as I know the
> encoding is indeed complete and given correct specification of the
> units (which include basetime) and a calendar, the calendar date/time
> can be calculated. This indeed requires a smart library, but I think
> that Bob Drach's CDMS correctly performs such a calculation.
>
> I'll try to go back and read the arguments, but I think I agree with
> most of what Steve Hankin has said.
>
> Best regards,
> Karl
Hi Karl:
There are 2 things incomplete from my POV:
1) CF specifies calendars, but theres no reference library that
implements them. If CDMS does so then perhaps we can leverage that.
2) We need to be able to express/manipulate calendar dates better that
we can now with udunits.
I guess I could just say that im disatisfied with udunits as a reference
library for calendar time units. The grammar allows months and years as
time intervals when that doesnt make sense. There are some other things
that are unclear (ill post one in a second). Anyway, I think the
reliance that CF has on udunits is, um, suboptimal.
Prost!
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20110322/374c5846/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Tue Mar 22 2011 - 06:40:24 GMT
