I like Jonathan's suggestion.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> John Caron proposed
>
> > "Applications should treat the data as missing where the auxiliary
> coordinates are missing"
>
> and Steve proposed (an hour later, I think)
>
> "Application writers should be aware that under some (rare)
> circumstances data auxiliary coordinate values may be missing, while
> other parameters at the corresponding indices remain valid. While
> special purpose applications may be able to glean useful information
> at these indices, most applications will want to regard data as
> missing where the auxiliary coordinates are missing "
>
> I could agree to either of these. I prefer John's, because it is simpler,
> but
> it's more severe than Steve's. A compromise might be possible, e.g.
>
> Generic applications should treat the data as missing where any auxiliary
> coordinate variables have missing values; special-purpose applications
> might
> be able to make use of the data.
>
> Any good?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> 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/20120402/5fcbc49a/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Mon Apr 02 2012 - 05:52:00 BST
