This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
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 Timelat-lon lon lat Grid variablesName 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 Timelat-lon lon lat Grid variablesName 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?http://motherlode.ucar.edu:9080/thredds/cdmValidateHelp.html