You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello,
I am working on the release of a database that gathers many rain products to a specific format.
We use ACDD and CF conventions. From the source data that we have, a lot of products came with CF-1.4 to CF-1.6.
I was wondering if it is better to let our dataset with the Conventions CF-1.6 or if it is advised to go for CF-1.8?
I saw from http://cfconventions.org/faq.html#version_compliance that , if I have well understood, data compliant with CF-1.6 should stay compliant with CF-1.8, but seeing the revision history, I was wondering if some changes could impact standard_name or other attributes of importance.
Hello,
I am working on the release of a database that gathers many rain products to a specific format.
We use ACDD and CF conventions. From the source data that we have, a lot of products came with CF-1.4 to CF-1.6.
I was wondering if it is better to let our dataset with the Conventions CF-1.6 or if it is advised to go for CF-1.8?
I saw from http://cfconventions.org/faq.html#version_compliance that , if I have well understood, data compliant with CF-1.6 should stay compliant with CF-1.8, but seeing the revision history, I was wondering if some changes could impact standard_name or other attributes of importance.
Moreover I saw from https://wiki.esipfed.org/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_1-3#standard_name that CF-1.6 is aligned with ACDD-1.3, so I was wondering if CF-1.8 was the same.
Best regards,
Jérémie
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: