Dear Jonathan, Bryan,
> Hi Ag, Jonathon
> > Has anyone created or suggested a standard way of encoding errors
> > associated with a particular variable into CF?
>
> I agree with your approach. Such quantities should have standard names and
> should be separate data variables. We could include the required prefix in
> the Transformations section of the guidelines. It's not quite a
> transformation but it's a similar idea.
>
> Could we be more accurate/precise than "error"? For instance, does it mean
> "uncertainty"? Does it mean one standard deviation?
> I think what we mean by error will probably need to be an attribute in
it's
> own right, it will depend on the instrument/data in question, and indeed
how
> the data was produced (for example, climatologies may well come with
standard
> deviations of the higher resolution temporal data as an "error"), but some
> instruments will come with an error worked out from a physical error
budget.
I agree with Bryan here, what we mean by "error" will vary significantly
between different datasets. I would therefore suggest that the "comment"
attribute is used to describe the nature of the "error" for each variable.
If we could define clearly what we mean by "uncertainty" or "error" as a
prefix for standard names then maybe they can both be used to mean different
things. However, I imagine it will be difficult to define them explicitly
enough and we will probably want to rely on the "comment" attribute. [Note:
the current CF document labels this attribute as "comments" in section 1.3
and as "comment" in section 2.6.2, I assume that "comment" is the accepted
version].
Ag
> Bryan
>
> --
> Bryan Lawrence, Head NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre
> web: www.badc.nerc.ac.uk phone: +44 1235 445012
> CLRC: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, OX110QX, UK
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
Received on Wed Mar 19 2003 - 01:24:45 GMT
