Re: EOL created netcdf files

Hi Janet:

My apologies for taking so long to respond. The problem is that CF does not
cover point data adequately, and Ive been trying to formulate a proposal to CF
about this. Im afraid you will have to decide whether its worth waiting for
that to be an official standard or not. I can probably give you some reasonable
interim advice, but it may not end up to be standard.

Looking at your files:

980101.PAM_Atl_met.nc looks fine as an unconnected collection of point data,
using existing CF Conventions. However, you may intend it to be a trajectory,
ie a connected collection?

BALTEX_Lindenberg_Falkenberg_20021001_20041231_sfc.nc is a time series of
station data, with only one station. Will all your files have only one station,
or do you want to be able to add multiple stations in the same file? If so,
will all stations have the same number of observations?

BALTEX_Lindenberg_Falkenberg_20021001_20041231_twr.nc has a couple of
problems:

1) rename variable "height" to "heights" so its a coordinate variable. (or
rename dimension "heights" to "height".

2) making the time variable two dimensional time(time, heights) looks like its
unneeded, ie it could be time(time)? If you really need 2D time, then you must
explicitly add to each data variable:

  :coordinates = "time height"

there are still some issues that i have to think about some more.



Janet Scannell wrote:
> John,
>
> Did you receive these files and have you had a chance to look at them?
> Please provide me with any feedback on the construction of these files.
> We would like to start converting our data to the netcdf format soon and
> need to get some feedback on whether the files are properly created
> before continuing on with our conversions.
>
> Thank you very much,
> Janet
>
> John Caron wrote:
>> Janet Scannell wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> On June 25th I sent you an email with some attached netcdf files.  I
>>> would like to get some feedback from you or someone in Unidata as to
>>> whether these netcdf files are correctly following the standards for
>>> netcdf files, since Unidata has the most experience with these
>>> standards.  One of the netcdf files was point data and the other was
>>> profile data.   Do you have time to look at those files and give us some
>>> feedback on the netcdf files?   We need to get this issue resolved soon,
>>> so that we can begin our netcdf conversions.  If you don't have time, is
>>> there someone else who could give us some feedback?  Do you need me to
>>> send the original email and files to you again?
>>>
>>
>> yes, please send files again, one was damaged.
>>