Hi all,
Perhaps we should define a new standard_name: e.g., basin_index (or
region_index) to replace the misused "region" standard_name.
I would note that in the conventions document in example 3.3 there is a
standard name: "sea_water_speed status_flag"
"status_flag" is a standard "name modifier" (see appendix C).
So, if we want to modify the convention, we could define a new name
modifier (say "index") and explicitly indicate that flag_values can be
used as indexes (when they are integers).
regards,
Karl
On 5/20/16 12:44 PM, martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> In CMIP5 the variable "basin" was used as a fixed spatial field with integer values and the CF Standard Name "region", which has the definition "A variable with the standard name of region contains strings which indicate geographical regions. These strings must be chosen from the standard region list."
>
> The integer valued CMIP5 variable is clearly not consistent with this definition. The CMIP5 variable was defined with flag_values and flag_meanings, such that the flag_meanings were from the CF standard region list.
>
> The question is, should we redefine the CMIP5 variable somehow, or would it be acceptable to adjust the CF Standard Name definition for region to accept this usage which appears clear enough and is presumably much easier for plotting packages to handle than a spatial array of string values,
>
> regards,
> Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160520/f7a7babf/attachment.html>
Received on Fri May 20 2016 - 16:16:23 BST
