Dear Martin
Yes, the problem you pointed out originally is the inconsistency of integers
with 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.
and following our discussion I would suggest we amend this definition to say
something like
A variable with the standard name of region contains values which indicate
geographical regions. These may either be strings chosen from the standard
region list, or integers which can be translated into strings that appear in
the standard region list using the flag_values and flag_meaning attribute of
the variable.
and that we do the same thing to the definition of area_type. Would that be
OK? In addition we can note in the convention that flag_values and
flag_meanings provide a mechanism to encode strings as self-describing
numbers.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk -----
> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:24:29 +0000
> From: martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] Use of CF standard name region
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> I can understand the argument that the concept of "region" is what you want in the standard name, and I'm happy to accept that. The problem that started this discussion remains, however. Namely, the current standard name definition for region includes a reference to the list of area_types specified within the CF Convention and an indication as to how that should be implemented.
>
> regards,
> Martin
>
>
>
> #################################################
>
>
>
> Dear Martin
>
> I agree with adding to the definition of region, and also area_type (for which
> this approach has also been advocated), that it may be convenient to store
> such variables as numbers with a flag_values and flag_meanings attribute.
> However I don't think it should be regarded as a different quantity, so I
> don't think it needs a different standard name. I don't think we should define
> standard numbers for regions or area_types, because this would be against the
> usual CF principle that files should describe their contents without need for
> reference to external tables. The representation of strings as numbers is not
> standardised, and is defined in the file by the flag attributes. That is why
> I regard it as an issue of encoding, more like scale and offset, and not a
> different quantity.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Sun Jun 05 2016 - 03:24:23 BST
