[Esip-documentation] ACDD 1.3 issue: geospatial_bounds, geospatial_vertical_units

[Aleksandar Jelenak via Esip-documentation]

On 10/3/14, 3:53 PM, "ESIP Documentation LIst"
<esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:
>1) Is the way it uses geospatial_vertical_units OK for specifying
>vertical CRSs other than the default?

Vertical unit is not the same kind of information as vertical CRS. Thus I
propose to have a new attribute, geospatial_vertical_srid, for vertical
CRS. The whole issue of coordinate reference systems was left out from the
previous ACDD versions so a new attribute here allows for a fresh new
start. Allowing CRS codes in geospatial_vertical_units is not backward
compatible and that seems to be one of the guiding design principles for
this ACDD version.

Note also that the current definition of geospatial_vertical_units
mentions a nonexistent attribute geospatial_bounding_box.

>If not, is it a problem that the geospatial_*_min/max attributes may be
>different than the ones in the geospatial_bounds?

Different in what way? The geospatial_*_min/max attributes specify a
bounding box; the geospatial_bounds attribute enables much more precise
definition of the data's discovery geospatial extent and the values are to
be expected to be different. If using both, ACDD should recommended that
the extent in the geospatial_bounds be fully enclosed in the bounding box.

	-Aleksandar