Thanks for the PR @JonathanGregory. I will discuss a bit further below.

We remove the reasonable assumption and add the no-default statement. It strikes me that we have maybe not concluded on the corner-case when the data producer wants to convey that the cells are in fact points. Should we include the corner-case in the no-default disclaimer?

Without a boundary variable, the extent of a cell is not known, nor whether adjacent cells are contiguous, separated by a gap, overlapping, or in fact points (cells with zero lengths).

It strikes me that we have maybe not concluded on the corner-case when the data producer wants to convey that the cells are in fact points.

What does "the cells are in fact points" mean? in my mind, points, are well, points, and not cells at all, and that's the usual definition of data in CF that doesn't have cell bounds.

the closest I've been able to find for a definition of "cell" is:

"When gridded data does not represent the point values of a field but instead represents some characteristic of the field within cells of finite "volume,"...

"finite" to me means, "not a point".

I noticed the statement under figs. 7.1 and 7.2 that say: "Tuples (lon(i),lat(j)) represent grid cell centers." Given the discussion, that the cell coordinate values aren't necessarily half way between the bounds, should these statements be reworded? Perhaps "Tuples (lon(i),lat(j)) represent the coordinate location of a cell."? Or perhaps "Tuples (lon(i),lat(j)) represent grid cell nominal centers."?

I support this pull request.

@ChrisBarker-NOAA @JonathanGregory

I am starting to wonder if our idea of adding a "no-assumption" sentence in Chapter 7 is that good.

Re-reading the very start of section 7:

When gridded data does not represent the point values of a field but instead represents some characteristic of the field within cells of finite "volume," a complete description of the variable should include metadata that describes the domain or extent of each cell, and the characteristic of the field that the cell values represent.

To me, this reads like the absence of :bounds should rightly be interpreted as providing locations for point values of a field. Because providing :bounds was specifically created for the cases where the data does not represent point values. Shouldn't the logical interpretation of the absence of :bounds rather be point values?

The new no-assumption sentence states that we cannot assume anything about cells in the absence of :bounds, but by doing so it actually brings the concept of a cell to mind, which seems contradictory to the first sentence of Chapter 7.

Maybe the best solution would be to delete the reasonable assumption sentence from Chapter 4, and add a sentence in Section 7 that reads: "In the absence of :bounds, the data represents the point values of a field". Then it is clear what the interpretation is when no :bounds are provided.

Sorry, I am going in circles a bit. Removing the sentence from Chapter 4 is still a very good idea.

I don't think the absence of bounds can imply "point" data unless we make bounds a requirement for data representing cells. In the past, this has not been a requirement, so we can't change this without upsetting backward compatibility.

In that case, the absence of :bounds cannot imply anything: neither that the axis value represents cells, nor that such cells are of any extent and shape.

Without a boundary variable, the axis values can neither be assumed to hold point positions, nor that the axis values represent cells. An unambiguous way to define point positions is to use the :bounds attribute to define 0-length cells. The only way to define cells, their position, and extent, is to use the :bounds attribute, as described below.

I don't think the absence of bounds can imply "point" data unless we make bounds a requirement for data representing cells. In the past, this has not been a requirement, so we can't change this without upsetting backward compatibility.

Is that really the case? how in the world can you have cells if you haven't defined them somehow?

If it really was the case that that one could put in data representing cells without defining what the cells are, then I suppose what you had was:

These data are on cells of unknown geometry -- seems like a bad idea to me, but if that's what CF used to allow, then I guess it still does.

So how do you know if the data are point data or cell data?

Is it point data if there is no cell_method, and cell data if there is?

in the current text:

When gridded data does not represent the point values of a field but instead represents some characteristic of the field within cells of finite "volume," a complete description of the variable should include metadata that describes the domain or extent of each cell..and the characteristic of the field that the cell values represent

OK, so that is a "should" not a must....

But if it IS cell data, then it must (?) have a cell_method and/or a cell_measure (e.g. cell-area).

I guess it's not useless to have, e.g. have a cell_method and a cell-area with no defined bounds, though not great.

Even a cell_method with no other definition of the cells is still some information.

Not sure what this means for the text, but maybe something along the lines of, in the intro to 7, something like:

"Data is Representative of Cells if there is a cell_method or a cell metric defined"

Along with the "should" for the bounds.

If you have comments (other than trivial ones on typos and words), please could you make them in #527, not here in the PR. Thanks.

I support all these modifications and clarifications.