Oh, I'm not arguing for against the method of encoding the realization
my point is simply that we have not chosen to have different standard
names in the situation where cell methods are different, and I would
have thought the same argument applied to realization weights, however
we encode them.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 10:31 -0800, Steve Hankin wrote:
> I think Jonathan hit on the fundamental distinction when he noted:
> "since it
> isn't related to the grid or computed in any way from coordinates, but depends
> more on data variables, it isn't really a cell_measure"
> Among current CF concepts closest analogy to "realization_weights" is
> not a cell measure. It is a mask -- a1-dimensional weighted mask that
> is derived from the data. Two dimensional derived masks have been
> commonplace in the analysis of COARDS and CF datasets for many years,
> though they have little formal discussion in the CF document, itself.
> The proper place for the "realization_weights" concept in the CF
> taxonomy is to formalize the concepts behind masks, imho.
>
> - Steve
>
> ================================================
>
> Bryan Lawrence wrote:
> > > If the different ways of calculating realization_weights produce distinct
> > > scientific quantities, as I suppose they do, then they should have
> > > different standard_names, so you can tell them apart.
> > >
> >
> > How is that different from differing methods of cell methods with the
> > same standard names?
> >
> > Bryan
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >
>
> --
> --
>
> Steve Hankin, NOAA/PMEL -- Steven.C.Hankin at noaa.gov
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070
> ph. (206) 526-6080, FAX (206) 526-6744
Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 14:59:01 GMT
