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
