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

Introduce units_metadata attribute to clarify the meaning of quantities involving temperature #481

Closed
JonathanGregory opened this issue Nov 16, 2023 · 5 comments · Fixed by #480
Labels
change agreed Issue accepted for inclusion in the next version and closed enhancement Proposals to add new capabilities, improve existing ones in the conventions, improve style or format

Comments

@JonathanGregory
Copy link
Contributor

JonathanGregory commented Nov 16, 2023

This issue arises from issue 101 of the discuss repo, opened by @larsbarring, about the need to clarify the meaning of quantities whose units involve temperature. After lengthy discussion, a working group was convened (@davidhassell @larsbarring @taylor13 @sebvi @semmerson @sethmcg @ethanrd @JonathanGregory) to develop a detailed proposal. It was agreed in discuss issue 101 that the proposal of the working group should be treated by the community as one which has already been agreed in principle. That proposal is set out in discuss issue 101 for review. Any comments should be concerned with clarity, style, and so on, not with content.

The purpose of the present issue is solely to implement the proposal, through pull request 480.

@edavis
Copy link

edavis commented Nov 16, 2023

Hi @JonathanGregory — Just a heads up, you're pinging the wrong E. Davis :)

I think you're looking for @ethanrd, instead.

@JonathanGregory
Copy link
Contributor Author

Quite right - thanks for correcting me, @edavis

@JonathanGregory
Copy link
Contributor Author

To aid review, I've made rendered versions of the conventions document (pdf html) and conformance document (pdf html).

@JonathanGregory
Copy link
Contributor Author

JonathanGregory commented Nov 17, 2023

If you have any suggestions for ways to improve the clarity and detail of the proposal, or if you see any conceptual difficulty that invalidates it, please comment on cf-convention/vocabularies#125 (which is where all previous discussion has taken place i.e. not here in #481) before Tuesday 28th November, when it will otherwise be accepted. Thanks.

@davidhassell
Copy link
Contributor

Hello - as things stand PR #480 will get merged on Monday 4th December 2023, so if you haven't reviewed it yet but would like to, time is running out ....

Thanks,
David

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
change agreed Issue accepted for inclusion in the next version and closed enhancement Proposals to add new capabilities, improve existing ones in the conventions, improve style or format
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants