# Custom Query (124 matches)

## Results (7 - 9 of 124)

Ticket | Resolution | Summary | Owner | Reporter |
---|---|---|---|---|

#32 | fixed | Ambiguity in text discussing auxiliary coordinate variables | cf-conventions@… | taylor13 |

Description |
I find the antecdents to the various instances of "their" in the following text ambiguous. "The axis attribute is not allowed for auxiliary coordinate variables. Auxiliary coordinate variables which lie on the horizontal surface can be identified as such by their dimensions being horizontal, which can in turn be inferred from their having an axis attribute of X or Y , or from their units in the case of latitude and longitude (see Chapter 4, Coordinate Types )." I propose modifying the text slightly to read: "The axis attribute is not allowed for auxiliary coordinate variables. Auxiliary coordinate variables which lie on the horizontal surface can be identified as such by their dimensions being horizontal. Horizontal dimensions are those whose coordinate variables have an axis attribute of X or Y, or a units attribute indicating latitude and longitude (see Chapter 4, Coordinate Types)." |
|||

#51 | fixed | syntax consistency for dimensionless vertical coordinate definitions | cf-conventions@… | taylor13 |

Description |
I suggest that for readability and for consistency in the syntax of the definitions of dimensionless vertical coordinates, the following changes be made in the CF documentation. - Where the coordinate definition involves a construction like "for k<=k_c .... for k>k_c ....", follow each "for" phrase with a colon. [This is currently done inconsistently.]
- Where the coordinate definition involves a term that is subsequently defined (e.g., the C(k) in the ocean-S coordinate), precede the definition of the term with "where".
These make the definitions easier to read. Note that CF does not mandate storage of the coordinate definitions in the netCDF files, but for CMIP, we store the formulas as a text string attribute attached to the coordinate variable and named "formula". |
|||

#62 | fixed | scalar auxiliary coordinate clarifications | cf-conventions@… | taylor13 |

Description |
This proposal is to clear up some apparent inconsistencies in the description of allowable attributes for auxiliary coordinate variables. At the beginning of section 6.2 of the conventions, it states: "In some situations a dimension may have alternative sets of coordinates values. Since there can only be one coordinate variable for the dimension (the variable with the same name as the dimension), any alternative sets of values have to be stored in auxiliary coordinate variables. For such alternative coordinate variables, there are no mandatory attributes, but they may have any of the attributes allowed for coordinate variables." But in paragraph 4 of Chapter 5 it states: "The axis attribute is not allowed for auxiliary coordinate variables." in contradiction to the statement in section 6.2. Furthermore, according to the definition of a scalar coordinate variable (section 1.2), it is supposed to be "functionally equivalent to either a size one coordinate variable or a size one auxiliary coordinate variable." The only way for this to be possible is for both types of scalar coordinates to include the same attributes. Currently the CF document forbids use of the axis attribute in conjunction with auxiliary coordinate variables, but allows its use for coordinate variables. To make the two consistent, the following change to paragraph 4 of Chapter 5 is proposed: Replace "The axis attribute is not allowed for auxiliary coordinate variables. Auxiliary coordinate variables ..." by "If an axis attribute is attached to an auxiliary coordinate variable, it can be used by applications in the same way the axis attribute is used in conjunction with coordinate variables. Note that if this attribute is missing, it may still be possible to determine if a particular dimension should be associated with the auxiliary coordinate variable. For example, auxiliary coordinate variables ..." Note that in Example 5.2, the axis attribute "X" is associated with xc, and if the above change were adopted, the axis attribute could also appear in conjunction with the auxiliary coordinate variable "lon". Would this cause problems? Also, some folks might misinterpret the paragraph at the end of section 2.4, which states that "The advantage of using a coordinate variable is that all its attributes can be used to describe the single-valued quantity, including boundaries." to mean that this is an "advantage over a a size one auxiliary coordinate variable", when in fact it means an "advantage over *omitting* the scalar variable". I therefore propose rewriting this sentence to read: "The use of a scalar coordinate variable is encouraged, when appropriate, because the coordinate attributes (including axis attribute and the cell bounds) can be defined to more fully describe the quantity of interest." |

**Note:**See TracQuery for help on using queries.