Hello Jonathan,
I would argue that incorporation of a convention from an established community, no matter how opaque it may appear, provides an extremely useful interoperability bridge. I would not, however, argue that such a convention should be used to replace what is already present in CF. I know this results in duplication of information, but I'm coming to realise that this is a necessary evil.
Cheers, Roy.
-----Original Message-----
From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 04 October 2011 15:28
To: Patrick Sunter
Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Question on WKT representation of CRS (Bentley, Philip)
Dear all
Patrick's example is useful.
> DATUM["Geocentric_Datum_of_Australia_1994",
> SPHEROID["GRS 1980",6378137,298.2572221010042,
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","7019"]],
> TOWGS84[0,0,0,0,0,0,0],
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","6283"]],
> PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],
> UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],
> AUTHORITY["EPSG","4283"]],
>
> whereas in CF-1 we can mainly only save the spheroid info:
> albers_conical_equal_area#semi_major_axis=6.37814e+06
> albers_conical_equal_area#inverse_flattening=298.257
The CF convention as it stands can say a lot less, but it does look more
self-explanatory to me! The meaning of the WKT is not clear to me. I'm quite
uneasy about importing a convention into CF which produces opaque metadata
like this, even though it is no doubt machine-readable.
Cheers
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
Received on Tue Oct 04 2011 - 08:38:14 BST
