NOTE: The cf-satellite mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hello, I vote for solution #1. Most elegant in my mind if the CF convention for attribute standard_name can be tweaked to accommodate multiple standard names (.e.g., such as a space separated list l ?) regards, On Nov 2, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote: > Dear Thomas et al. > > If I've understood correctly, two different solutions have been suggested to > the issue of duplicated status_flag variables. > > * Have only one status_flag variable, with flag_values and flag_meanings > attributes. This one variable will be pointed to by the ancillary_variables > attribute of several data variables. This means we need a new convention for > the standard_name attribute so that it can be associated with data variables > that may have various standard_names. > > * Have a separate status_flag variable for each data variable. In that case > the standard_name can be specific to the data variable. To avoid repeating > the definitions of flags, introduce a new convention to allow the flag_values > and flag_meanings attributes to be attached to a separate container variable > that can be pointed to by all the data variables. > > Clearly there are use cases that need attention in some way, but it would be > preferable to make no more than one change to the CF standard. Which of these > approaches is preferable, or are there others that people have in mind? > > Cheers > > Jonathan -ed Ed Armstrong JPL Physical Oceanography DAAC 818 519-7607
cf-satellite archives: