Jonathan,
+1 on your idea of only identifying variables as aux coordinate
variables once they have valid values at valid data locations.
-Rich
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Gregory
<j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Jim
>
> We are discussing auxiliary coordinate variables. They do not have to be
> 1D or monotonic. Those requirements apply to coordinate variables in the
> Unidata sense. CF distinguishes these two concepts in Sect 1.2.
>
>> The point is, the information in the variable *is* coordinate information,
>
> I would say, if it's missing, it's not information.
>
>> What if we say something along the lines of, "Applications should treat the
>> data as missing where the auxiliary coordinates are missing when plotting
>> data."? ?Would that resolve the problem?
>
> Plotting is not the only thing that an application might wish to use it for.
> If we said, more generally, "Applications should treat the data as missing for
> all purposes where the aux coord variables are missing", it would be almost
> the same as not allowing missing data in aux coord vars, since there would be
> no point in providing a data value if it was not permitted to use it.
>
> Although I am arguing one side, I could be convinced either way. But it does
> feel unsafe to me at present.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Dr. Richard P. Signell?? (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
Received on Thu Mar 29 2012 - 09:47:30 BST
