I have put a couple of posts onto a trac ticket:
https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/68#comment:26
but these do not seem to be posted to the mailing list, which is unfortunate, I thought this functionality had been implemented.
Apologies for anyone who already has these, but I don't want them hidden away from potentially interested parties:
Referencing the PotentialDataModelTypes wiki (
https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/PotentialDataModelTypes), I would like to open discussion on some issues:
Firstly: the definition of an abstract Coordinate type.
This has been suggested as a container for common properties of DimensionCoordinate and AuxiliaryCoordinate types.
Is it a sensible construct to have?
Does it add value?
I think it does, which I why I propose its inclusion, there appear to be common aspects shared by DimensionCoordinate and AuxiliaryCoordinate which can be defined in one and only one place, e.g.:
Their indexing relationship to their containing ScalarField/Field
The constraint on size/shape from their reference to the ScalarField/Field
Secondly: the definitions of ScalarField and Field:
The proposed Field definition includes explicit description of the other types this type may contain. The ScalarField makes no comment on types it may contain, merely stating
and metadata describing the phenomenon values
Should type definitions be explicit about what they may reference or is this the role of the 'Relation' section (as yet not defined)?
09/26/12 01:07:12 changed by markh
Other points I would like to open discussion on:
CellMeasures:
The type is defined with the name CellMeasures, but the definition and the example suggest the type should be called CellMeasure. The description suggests this is a singular entity, like Dimension, which a Field may have multiple different instances of. Does this seem valid?
How does a CellMeasure differ from an AuxiliaryCoordinate? The way they link to a Field/ScalarField appears very similar, the main difference appears to be in how they might be used. Is this sufficient justification for an explicit type?
CellMethod/CellMethods
One of the proposed definitions, CellMethods, defines a singular type which is an ordered list of similar entries. The other, Cellmethod, defines a type which implements a single qualification; a ScalarField might have multiple instances of this type.
Is one of these approaches more helpful than the other?
Received on Wed Sep 26 2012 - 02:24:56 BST
