Hi Glenn,
My reading of the conformance document (as well as the conventions
document) is that standard_name is optional (but either standard_name or
long_name is recommended).
Here's the relevant section from the conformance document:
3 Description of the Data
*Recommendations:
*
* All variables should use either the long_name or the standard_name
attributes to describe their contents. Exceptions are boundary and
climatology variables.
I agree with Nan, that it is essential that variables without standard
names be allowed.
regards,
Karl
On 5/27/11 7:34 AM, Nan Galbraith wrote:
> Hi Glenn -
>> Given that this would greatly undermine the purpose of the CF Convention,
> On the contrary, it's very important that variables without standard
> names be allowed in CF files.
>
> In OceanSITES, we use this "feature" of the convention to
> allow users to include instrument-specific and provenance-related
> variables. These are typically variables that do not need to be
> discoverable, and often don't need to be understood outside the
> community in which the data is generated. We require standard
> names for "scientific observables" but encourage people to include
> other variables that help describe the data collection, quality, and
> processing of those observations.
>
> To require standard names for all variables would make CF untenable,
> and would drown this list in requests for new names. Or worse, it would
> encourage data providers to omit key metadata that's best expressed
> as a variable in NetCDF.
>
> Regards -
> Nan Galbraith
>
>
>
> On 5/27/11 7:25 AM, Comiskey, Glenn wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I note a discrepency between the CF document and the CF conformance
>> requirements and recommendations document, for all versions v1.0 thru
>> v1.5, in that the CF conformance requirements and recommendations
>> document states that the standard_name attribute is a requirement,
>> while the CF document details standard_name as "an optional mechanism"
>> for describing the data being represented. The CF conformance
>> requirements and recommendations document clearly states that in the
>> event of "any discrepancies between the two, the conventions document
>> is the ultimate authority." This would seem to imply that
>> standard_name is in fact not a requirement for CF conformance.
>> Given that this would greatly undermine the purpose of the CF
>> Convention, i.e. "provide a definitive description of what the
>> data...represents", I am assuming that the authors of the CF
>> Convention intend for standard_name to be mandatory for CF
>> conformance. However, I am hoping if someone is able to definitively
>> state whether the standard_name attribute is a requirement or is
>> optional, i.e. recommended, but not obliqatory.
>> I dare say this matter has been raised before, but having only just
>> started working with metorological/oceonographic data sets I'm not
>> aware of what the accepted answer to my query is; and I haven't been
>> able to find anything in the archive relating to this matter.
>> Kind regards,
>> Glenn Comiskey
>> Data System Administrator
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20110527/7ed63369/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Fri May 27 2011 - 12:54:49 BST
