Dear all,
I agree that in cases where bounds are appropriate, they should always
be included. I'm not sure, however, how the checker would know in which
cases they should be included.
So, we'll have to be careful in how we word the recommendation, and
perhaps the checker won't be able to raise a warning when they aren't.
regards,
Karl
On 8/11/11 11:33 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Karl
>
> I agree with Karl about this:
>
>> I'm not sure why we should assume anything if the bounds are
>> missing. Making an assumption would be valuable if the absence of
>> bounds invariably implied a rule (e.g., centers half-way between
>> bounds), but otherwise the assumption could be wrong, so what have
>> we gained?
> ...
>> It might especially be difficult to decide where to place the bounds
>> in the case of unevenly spaced grid-points.
> While I agree we should not assume a default for missing bounds, I think it
> would be good to recommend that bounds should be included. At present we do
> not do this. If we made it a recommendation (in section 5.1), the CF_checker
> would give a warning if there were no bounds.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110812/f20f0f3e/attachment.html>
Received on Fri Aug 12 2011 - 10:13:38 BST
