On 12/22/2011 2:11 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear all
>
> The existing Unidata recommendation is OK and we could incorporate it into
> CF but it would help to be more precise, for instance: If the Conventions att
> includes no commas, it is interpreted as a blank-separated list of conventions;
> if it contains at least one comma, it is interpreted as a comma-separated list.
> Blank-separated lists are more CF-like - many CF attributes use that syntax -
> but obviously we can't insist that other conventions don't have blanks in their
> names, and it would be simpler therefore to use a comma-separated list for
> this attribute, despite the Unidata recommendation.
>
> I see no problem with allowing multiple conventions except the important
> proviso that if the file follows more that one convention it is the
> responsibility of the data-writer to ensure there is no inconsistency between
> the metadata following these conventions. That is, they must serve
> complementary purposes. It would be impossible to check this automatically so
> we have to depend on the data-writer doing it correctly.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
I think this would solve the problem:
"If the Conventions att
includes no commas, it is interpreted as a blank-separated list of conventions;
if it contains at least one comma, it is interpreted as a comma-separated list."
I could also point out that reading software has a list of conventions it recognizes, so in practice one takes the result of this parsing and compares to a known list. also, the netcdf-4 data model allows attribute values to be a 1-d array of Strings.
Received on Thu Dec 22 2011 - 09:56:20 GMT
