Chris,
The point is, the Conventions themselves state that there is no standard. People are all the time trying to add meaning to variable names, but the standard actually states that the meaning is to reside in the attributes. The variable names are just keys for differentiating the variables. (I could name all my variables ?vNNNNNNNNNN?, where N is a digit, and I would be completely valid according to the standard.) The long_name and standard_name attributes are the places where descriptors of the variable content are to be found.
So I?m raising a question. Is there actually anything other than sentiment (i.e., an actual rule) that anyone can point to that prevents someone from using ?new? characters in their variable names?
Grace and peace,
Jim
Visit us on
Facebook Jim Biard
Research Scholar
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC
North Carolina State University
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
e: jbiard at cicsnc.org
o: +1 828 271 4900
On Jan 15, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Chris Barker <chris.barker at noaa.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:39 AM, jbiard <jbiard at mail.cicsnc.org> wrote:
> I don't think we should use ease of mapping variable names to a programming language as a reason for allowing (or not allowing) any particular character in variable names.
>
> Why not? maybe not a compelling reason, but I can't imagine a compelling reason to have more flexible naming conventions, either.
> CF has, as I understood it, considered variable names as completely up to the producer, relying on attributes to provide meaning. So, I can name a temperature variable "fluffy_bunny" if I want to, and it is completely valid.
>
> valid yes, a good idea? probably not.
>
> Section 1.3 of the Conventions states, "No variable or dimension names are standardized by this convention."
>
> so there are no standard variable names -- that's not the same as standards for variable names....
>
> Personally, I wish there were standards for variable names, it would make it easier to code against -- but that cat's out of the bag. But this cat isn't: the restiricitons have been there for a long time, so the question now is:
>
> what are the reasons for easing those restrictions?
>
> and
>
> what are the reasons for keeping those restrictions?
>
> we've given a few reasons for keeping them (maybe not all that compeling toyou, but reasons none the less) -- what are the reasons for relaxing them, other than "I like this naming convention that is currently not allowed" ?
>
> I'm not convinced that "fluffy-bunny" is any more readable or anything else than "fluffy_bunny"
>
> -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
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20140115/49a80f4d/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Wed Jan 15 2014 - 10:24:08 GMT
