Skip to content
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

forbidden use of missing_value in 2 examples #162

Closed
taylor13 opened this issue May 15, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

forbidden use of missing_value in 2 examples #162

taylor13 opened this issue May 15, 2019 · 5 comments
Labels
change agreed Accepted for inclusion in the next version defect Conventions text meaning not as intended, misleading, unclear, has typos, format or language errors

Comments

@taylor13
Copy link

In appendix H.2.3 examples H.4 and H.5, missing_value is defined for the time coordinate, time(time). CF forbids missing values in true dimension variables, so time:missing_value = -999.9; should be removed from each example.

@davidhassell
Copy link
Contributor

I agree.

@ngalbraith
Copy link

Is there a rationale for forbidding missing values in dimension variables? Time is a perfect example, where there may be a bogus value in the record (occasionally, at least for instrument data) but the place holder is needed, since this is a dimension as well as a coordinate. Assuming that the rest of the record contains good data, we don't want to delete it all and may not want to replace the time value with the 'corrected' time (for various reasons, once again having to do with instrumentation, like monitoring the health of a clock or a logger).

This has been discussed over the years, but I can't recall why this rule exists.

@JonathanGregory
Copy link
Contributor

JonathanGregory commented Jun 3, 2019 via email

@JonathanGregory
Copy link
Contributor

JonathanGregory commented Aug 28, 2022

This issue proposes to delete incorrect missing_data attributes of time coordinate variables in two examples in Appendix H. It was raised by Karl @taylor13 more than 3 years (≫ 3 weeks) ago. @davidhassell and I agreed that he was right. It refers to an error in the document, so the issue should be treated as correcting a defect. No-one objected, and silence means tacit agreement. Therefore I have prepared a pull request to make the change. Please could someone check and merge it. Also please note that this issue should be given the label change_agreed and the PR should have milestone 1.10 when you do the merge. Thanks.

@davidhassell davidhassell modified the milestone: 1.10 Aug 30, 2022
@davidhassell
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for following up on this, Jonathan, It will make it into CF-1.10.

@JonathanGregory JonathanGregory added the change agreed Accepted for inclusion in the next version label Sep 2, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
change agreed Accepted for inclusion in the next version defect Conventions text meaning not as intended, misleading, unclear, has typos, format or language errors
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants