Re: Announce: Common Data Model Coordinate System validation

• To: Rich Signell <rsignell@xxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: Announce: Common Data Model Coordinate System validation
• From: John Caron <caron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:20:25 -0700

Rich Signell wrote:

Cool!  My test file validated perfectly, I believe.

I say "I believe" because the validator doesn't actually say "no errors" or "no warnings" like I expected.

But under the Section titled

"Summary of Possible Problems" there isn't anything listed, so that means it's ok?

My output is:

Dataset= test_topo.nc
Summary of Possible Problems
Convention=CF-1.0
Coordinate Axes
Name     Declaration     AxisType     units     udunits
lat     float lat(lat=71)     Lat     degree_north     true
lon     float lon(lon=101)     Lon     degree_east     true
Grid Coordinate Systems
Name     X     Y     Vertical     Time

lat-lon lon lat Grid variables

Name     Declaration     units     udunits     CoordSys
depth     float depth(lat=71, lon=101)     meter     true     lat-lon
Non-Grid variables
Name     Declaration     units     udunits     CoordSys

But it might be nice to say:

Dataset= test_topo.nc
Summary of Possible Problems
No Problems Found.
Convention=CF-1.0
Coordinate Axes
Name     Declaration     AxisType     units     udunits
lat     float lat(lat=71)     Lat     degree_north     true
lon     float lon(lon=101)     Lon     degree_east     true
Grid Coordinate Systems
Name     X     Y     Vertical     Time

lat-lon lon lat Grid variables

Name     Declaration     units     udunits     CoordSys
depth     float depth(lat=71, lon=101)     meter     true     lat-lon
Non-Grid variables
Name     Declaration     units     udunits     CoordSys

I agree, but its often hard to tell if there are really no problems, and Im loathe to 
give false positives. Maybe if all variables are Grid or Axes, and there are no 
"non-Grid" variables, that should be sufficient. Ill add that.

The Help page says a little about this, did you see it?