NOTE: The cf-pointobsconvention mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
John Graybeal wrote:
That seems useful for models but not so much for observations (which typically don't conform to, say, atmospheric surfaces). More to the point, for me at least, the conflation of location with variable name -- I have to name this varable one thing if I measure it here, but then I move my instrument and my variable is now called something else -- is not a viable general-purpose mechanism for observing systems.
Jonathan was talking about an optional "standard name", not variable names.
John At 5:39 PM +0100 9/18/07, Jonathan Gregory wrote:Dear JohnOk, we can recommend but not require. Do you think "surface" is reasonable to assume when z is missing?No, just because Z is missing you can't assume that it's at the surface. It could be something like "tropopause" and just that there is no additional data to set that reference.In CF, data on particular surfaces that aren't defined by particular coord variables has this intended in the standard name e.g. "X_at_tropopause" or "X_at_sea_level". Cheers Jonathan _______________________________________________ cf-pointobsconvention mailing list cf-pointobsconvention@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
cf-pointobsconvention archives: