-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Inputs arguments that have no cf standard names #57
Comments
Lets do another look over the CF standard name table, there are some names for a few of these:
Some of these wont have standard names and they probably won't be accepted if proposed:
|
Thanks for the double check, I'll add the standard names. I should have been more careful, as some of the arguments of gsw functions are indeed arguments (usually optional), and not physical quantities. Physical quantities without a standard name (or at least, that I haven't implemented/seen):
We have a small issue: I think that Arguments:
|
I don't know if we should consider |
For the list of arguments, I thinks that it makes sense to force the user to provide them (if mandatory) / to use the default values if the user does not precise them. |
That is a fantastic table, thanks for all this hard work. Some thoughts:
|
I'll try to summarize the work that needs to be done:
The point 1. is not urgent as it can be bypassed by 5. I'll try to fix this issue first (= make PR #53 fully functional), and see later how to make everything work with the autodetection (PR #30 ) |
Damn it, I just realized that |
Sorry at my lack of response, have been at sea since... basically November. Only 10 days left in the cruise though! Re the auto detection of calculable params, I don't have a good feel for how an API might be without playing around a little. To that end, do we have some target real world datasets that we should "support"? First one that comes to my mind is argo _prof.nc files. Also the new GO-SHIP/CCHDO format, but I have some influence of the direction of that one, so that's "cheating". I'm not a modeler and am unfamiliar with any model output datasets... |
You are probably right, we may need to target datasets. I am not very used to observation (as you are), but I have more experience with models outputs (which is good because we are complementary :) ) |
The followings inputs don't have a standard name. This is a problem for the accessor / the auto-detection. So we either need to open a request to add a standard name in the cf convention (let's call it solution 0) (I'll be happy to do it, but I have no clue how to do), or find another solution.
Among the possible other solutions, I see:
And here is the list:
To compare, here is the list of arguments that have a standard name:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: