Hi.
I'm opposed to the addition of a standard name. Standard names are
intended to identify classes, or types of things. As I look at it, the
goal is to keep implementation details out of standard names. ISO8601 is
an implementation, so I think it has no place in the standard name
vocabulary. Simple as that.
The units attribute is the natural (and current) place where the way the
time is represented is described. Why change this?
Now, if the proposal is to define a new entity, datetime, that is *not* time,
and that would not be valid for use where time is used, then we could
certainly add a standard name "datetime".
That's my percocet-fueled thoughts on this topic. (I am recovering from
sinus surgery.)
Grace and peace,
Jim
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/20130320/62a7f6fa/attachment.html>
Received on Wed Mar 20 2013 - 09:14:58 GMT
