Hi Jonathan et al
> In that case I don't think it is appropriate to have standard_names which
> use the same word ("error") or phrase to label these quantities. It would
> be better to say more precisely what the quantity is. When data is
> produced it must be possible to say how the error estimate was derived in
> each case, and there may be a choice of methods, so we should choose
> standard names that indicate what has been done.
I don't have a problem with either approach, but does CF support the linking
of variables via an attribute? For example, I can imagine having a file
containing monthly mean wind values from a radiosonde station, which
would contain profiles of humidity, temperature and wind. I would also want to
see in the file profiles of the standard error of each of these quantities. I
can give these long names ok, but what I want to do is have a mechanism that
allows me for each of the "data" variables to have an attribute to the
"error" variable ... that way I can easily build plotting programmes with
error bars ...
What then I'd like to do is have an attribute error_variable, which when
attached to a variable, points at another variable within the file (the
actual variable containing the error values) .... exactly what sort of error
it is can be an attribute of the latter variable itself.
Maybe we can do that already, but I didn't spot it ... if so, apologies for
wasting folks time.
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
Received on Wed Mar 19 2003 - 11:14:32 GMT
