All,
For the work I am doing right now, I am required to *not* fill in missing
values in any variable. I encourage everyone to go with John Caron's idea.
Grace and peace,
Jim
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM, John Caron <caron at unidata.ucar.edu> wrote:
> To answer this concern, I would agree to modify the statement
>
> "Applications are free to assume that data is missing where the auxiliary
> coordinates are missing"
>
> to
>
>
> "Applications should treat the data as missing where the auxiliary
> coordinates are missing"
>
> My concern is that we shouldnt make a file "non CF compliant" just because
> the data provider would like to store data values where there arent
> coordinate values. But telling them that standard software _will_ ignore
> them seems good.
>
>
>
>
> On 3/29/2012 9:47 AM, Rich Signell wrote:
>
>> 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<http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/**mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata<http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata>
>
--
Jim Biard
Research Scholar
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites
Remote Sensing and Applications Division
National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801-5001
jim.biard at noaa.gov
828-271-4900
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20120329/c9372843/attachment.html>
Received on Thu Mar 29 2012 - 10:05:17 BST
