On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
> wrote:
> I didn't suggest parsing attribute strings. The same numbers that Ben
> would put
> in his x and y auxiliary coordinate variables for a single polygon can
> appear
> in coordinate bounds variables according to the existing convention.
OK then, sorry for the confusion, probably me reading it too fast...
OK. I didn't investigate this, but it would be good to know about it. If
> ugrid can do something like this, but not all of it, maybe ugrid could be
> extended.
sure.
> If ugrid seems too complicated for these cases, maybe a "light"
> version of ugrid could be proposed for them. I think we should avoid having
> two partially overlapping conventions.
I agree -- but it seem like these are really different use cases to me --
sure there are similarities, but a different enough focus that a different
standard may make sense -- though hopefully UGRID can inform the "new" one,
so as to not have different way to accomplish the parts that are the same.
CF2 is not well-defined.
I thought it wasn't defined at all. But I think we all share your concerns
about that.
-CHB
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20160922/5d635ffa/attachment.html>
Received on Thu Sep 22 2016 - 12:11:17 BST
