Hello Martin,
I think that a CF scalar coordinate variable is not a NUG-defined
coordinate variable because it does not have the same name as a
dimension.
Nor is it a special type of CF coordinate variable, as was discussed
in ticket #104
http://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/104 - it could be
functionally equivalent to an auxiliary coordinate variable.
However, section 1.3 makes it clear (in italics, no less) that
"The use of [NUG-defined] coordinate variables is required for all
dimensions that correspond to one dimensional space or time
coordinates"
which as you point out is incorrect. Perhaps that is where a
clarification should go, i.e.:
"The use of coordinate variables or scalar coordinate variables (as
defined in section 5.7) is required for all dimensions that
correspond to one dimensional space or time coordinates"
What do you think?
All the best,
David
---- Original message from martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk (09AM 08 Dec 15)
> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:58:29 +0000
> From: martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] On scalar coordinate variables
>
> Hello,
>
> The CF Convention 1.6 and draft 1.7 both include, in the discussion of dimensions in Section 2.4, the statement that:
> "It is also acceptable to use a scalar coordinate variable which eliminates the need for an associated size one dimension in the data variable."
>
> However, the convention states that coordinate variables should be interpreted as 'NUG-defined "coordinate variables."'. The NUG is vague about the definition ( https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/docs/coordinate_variables.html ), but it does say "Current application packages that make use of coordinate variables commonly assume they are numeric vectors and strictly monotonic". It also states that "A position along a dimension can be specified using an index", which is not consistent with the use of a scalar coordinate variable.
>
> One application which appears to assume that coordinate variables are vectors is the CF Checker, so we need some clarification. I'm not sure how other applications deal with it.
>
> The problem with the current phrasing in the CF Conventions document is that it suggests the NUG approach is being followed and then introduces a departure from the NUG approach in a separate part of the text.
>
> I would recommend either adding after 'NUG-defined "coordinate variables"' a clarification '(that is a scalar or vector variable with the same name as a dimension)', or changing the statement about use of scalar coordinate variables.
>
> regards,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
David Hassell
National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS)
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading,
Earley Gate, PO Box 243,
Reading RG6 6BB, U.K.
Tel : +44 118 3785613
E-mail: d.c.hassell at reading.ac.uk
Received on Tue Dec 08 2015 - 07:18:42 GMT
