Hello,
That assessment seems to be the crux of the problem. Its look like CF wants a specific quality variable standard name, an approach that won't work for one quality variable applicable to many other data variables.
But the standard_name in not required, is it ? So a simple "comment:" statement could remind the user the data variables a particular quality variable is applicable for. Or could you have a list of standard_names in the quality variable (would require new CF "rules" ) ?
On Nov 1, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Upendra
>
>> On 11/1/2011 10:47 AM, Upendra Dadi wrote:
>>> The same issue occurs with World Ocean Database which consists of
>>> mainly profile data. Each profile typically consists of several
>>> variables measured along the depth. The quality flags used for all
>>> the variable are same.
>
>>> On 10/31/2011 12:12 PM, Randy Horne wrote:
>>>> The current CF conventions dictate that quality flags are
>>>> attached to specific variables. The implication is that
>>>> comforming with CF conventions would require the same quality
>>>> flags to be stored multiple times in our NetCDF product files.
>
> Quality flags are attached to variables using the ancillary_variables att of
> the data variable. If several data variables had the same quality flags and
> dimensions, they could all point to the same quality variable. Perhaps the
> problem is that the different variables have different standard names, and
> this means the quality variables would also have different standard names
> (and therefore could not be the same variable)? If that is the problem, perhaps
> we could find a way round it. Or have I missed the point?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> cf-satellite mailing list
> cf-satellite at unidata.ucar.edu
> For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
-ed
Ed Armstrong
JPL Physical Oceanography DAAC
818 519-7607
Received on Tue Nov 01 2011 - 11:44:18 GMT
