On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Jon Blower <j.d.blower at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> specifying some attributes that don't provide much value for their data. Is it worth adding some text to the CF docs to say something along the lines of:
>
> "The attributes valid_min, valid_max and valid_range should only be used when necessary [or should be used with caution], as they can cause unexpected behaviour in situations such as aggregation. If only one missing value is needed for a variable then we recommend strongly that this value be specified using the _FillValue attribute. "
+1
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Jim Biard <jim.biard at noaa.gov> wrote:
Jon,
> I appreciate the frustration of finding such problems, but isn't this more a problem > of lazy processing than a flaw in the valid min/max concept?
I don't think so -- there are WAY to many ways that missing/invalid
values are expressed in CF -- at least in data files in the wild. I
think we should at least encourage people to do it in a standard,
simple way.
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
Chris.Barker at noaa.gov
Received on Tue Jul 09 2013 - 09:58:43 BST
