On 3/26/12 1:35 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> ...
> Regarding Nan's point, I would say that we do want CF to be inclusive. It
> would be a mistake to impose irrelevant requirements that deterred people
> from using the convention. In the case you mention, the chapter 9 convention
> for profiles wouldn't allow you to have missing data in Z; it permits missing
> data in coordinates only where the data is also missing.
>
> I suppose that the pressure information is actually data in the raw obs
> dataset. It would be legal to keep it in the file but not identify it as an
> auxiliary coordinate variable (in the coordinates attribute). Then it would
> be fine to having missing data in it. Would that be significantly less
> convenient? Just a thought.
> ...
I don't think it is a good option to not allow a variable that
IS a coordinate to be labeled as a coordinate, if there are some
values missing.
It would be more than inconvenient; it would come close
to rendering the data meaningless. It seems to me to be
preferable to allow fill values in a coordinate variable (at
least in an auxiliary coordinate) - otherwise there is no standard
way to that I know of to indicate the depth of the measurements.
Not a good trade off, unless I'm missing something.
Thanks - Nan
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Mon Mar 26 2012 - 14:26:01 BST
