Hi Randy...
My take on this is that you are carving out new territory. As I'm not
familiar at all with the issues (except for your posts here), I can
only suggest that you define whatever new "standard_names" as needed,
and also propose extensions to the current Conventions that allow you
to efficiently store and retrieve the data efficiently, and can be
easily understood by users of the data. From your descriptions, it is
clear that most display and analysis applications that "understand" CF
conventions will not out-of-the-box understand or know what to do with
these "space weather" type of products; and I do not think folks will
extend them until there is an agreed upon set of conventions.
This is an important area of observations, and I'm really glad that
you are still considering working within the confines of "CF" to
define the conventions for the datasets.
tom
--
Tom Whittaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Space Science & Engineering Center (SSEC)
Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS)
1225 W. Dayton Street
Madison, WI 53706 USA
ph: +1 608 262 2759
Received on Tue Sep 25 2012 - 08:54:02 BST
