Hi Martin, Mark, and all,
I can see that theoretically one might want to define a transect, but do
we have any compelling use case to do this at the moment? I don't think
CMIP6 is such a case.
cheers,
Karl
On 7/1/15 6:33 AM, Hedley, Mark wrote:
> Hello Martin,
>
>> If the two end points can be specified with bounds within the existing convention, it might be simpler to use that. Can you explain to me how this is done? The only reference to bounds which I could find in the convention was in connection with cell boundaries.
> I don't think it can be done. I agree with your analysis, the only reference to bounds is with regard to cell boundaries. It think it is sensible to keep it this way and provide a separate mechanism for your transect use case. I think overloading the current bounds mechanism is likely to lead to problems.
>
>> The flow direction does need to be defined .. I suppose that would involve a clarification of the standard_name ocean_volume_transport_across_line. As you say, this should not be too complicated once we have a definition of the line to refer to.
> It would be good to consider if this could be defined for the transect, so that standard_name descriptions can remain unchanged. I'll think on this some more.
>
>> The approach I was thinking of could easily accommodate multiple points on a line, though I don't have a use for it at present. e.g.
> excellent.
>
> I'll follow up on this soon
> mark
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Tue Jul 07 2015 - 18:26:51 BST
