Isn't this part of the NetCDF Attribute Convention for Dataset Discovery?
I'm not sure we want to wander into that territory - wouldn't it be better
to recommend the use of the NACDD?
Also, the WMO platform id may seem like a definitive id, but, as I
understand
it, these numbers are re-used (except in special cases).
I like the NACDD approach, that specifies both the id and the "naming
authority" that supports it; this combination "should be a globally unique
identifier for the dataset." So, if you've got a permanent wmo id for your
station, you can use that as the name, and use wmo as the naming
authority.
I use wmo ids myself, but it does not seem like an appropriate part
of the CF spec.
- Nan
On 8/25/11 8:50 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Jeff
>
> I think this one is fine
>> - wmo_platform_id : variable of integer type, containing the WMO
>> identifier of an observing station or other platform
> For this one
>> - station_description : variable of character type containing a
>> description of a time series station
> I now wonder what we mean by "description". What is probably expected is a
> geographical location of some sort, isn't it. Could we call it station_name?
> Like long_name and standard_name, it could still be several words.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Thu Aug 25 2011 - 10:08:00 BST
