While the first solution is better in the case when several data variables have the same status flag, the second solution is better when there are several data variables each of which have a different status flag but same flag_values and flag_meanings. Can't we have both the solutions?
Upendra
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
Date: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:45 am
Subject: Re: [cf-satellite] [CF-metadata] Sharing quality flags amongmultiple variables
> Dear Thomas et al.
>
> If I've understood correctly, two different solutions have been
> suggested to
> the issue of duplicated status_flag variables.
>
> * Have only one status_flag variable, with flag_values and
> flag_meaningsattributes. This one variable will be pointed to by
> the ancillary_variables
> attribute of several data variables. This means we need a new
> convention for
> the standard_name attribute so that it can be associated with data
> variablesthat may have various standard_names.
>
> * Have a separate status_flag variable for each data variable. In
> that case
> the standard_name can be specific to the data variable. To avoid
> repeatingthe definitions of flags, introduce a new convention to
> allow the flag_values
> and flag_meanings attributes to be attached to a separate container
> variablethat can be pointed to by all the data variables.
>
> Clearly there are use cases that need attention in some way, but it
> would be
> preferable to make no more than one change to the CF standard.
> Which of these
> approaches is preferable, or are there others that people have in
> mind?
> Cheers
>
> 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/
Received on Wed Nov 02 2011 - 12:26:42 GMT
