Ok. That's clear then. Decision accepted from my point of view
(Jonathan+Roy>>Bryan :-)
However, it does bring up a different issue. Should we be collecting a list of
issues somewhere that should feed into the revolution if/when it happens?
Cheers
Bryan
On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:42:10 Roy Lowry wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
>
> I would prefer any changes in Standard Names conventions/practices to be by
> revolution rather than evolution, even if that evolution is from bad to
> good practice. Semantic modelling and ontology creation are much easier if
> there are consistent patterns in the base lists. So, I agree with Jonathan
> even if my reasons are somewhat different.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> >>> Bryan Lawrence <b.n.lawrence at rl.ac.uk> 6/28/2007 4:30 pm >>>
> >
> > data would not be self- describing. Not knowing the sign convention is a
> > serious problem for analysis of data. The fact that the data would not be
> > CF-compliant would be no consolation for its being useless. It is better
> > to prevent problems happening.
>
> (Possible response: Make the sign mandatory. I think asking someone who
> didn't read the CF convention when they designed their model to rerun the
> model or rewrite the output is a bigger ask than adding one tiny attribute
> to each variable ... and one which which would make software deciding what
> to do with comparing data much easier to design).
>
> > > What happens if I build (or have) a model which happens to have a
> > > different sign convention than the one chosen thus far? Do I have to
> > > reprocess all my data, or introduce a duplicate set of standard names
> > > with the opposite convention embedded. The latter doesn't seem right!
> >
> > You have to introduce other standard names. We already have several
> > upward/ downward pairs for this reason, but it turns out that in practice
> > there is not lot of such duplication, because people tend to use common
> > conventions, so it's never been suggested to present a significant
> > problem. Hence I think the evidence is that this pragmatic decision was
> > reasonable, and although other decisions could have been taken there is
> > at present no reason to change the guidelines.
>
> That's an argument for inertia, which is certainly pragmatic, but I think
> there are things coming for which this is not going to be so easy. What
> about family chemistry? I bet there is no convention on the deltas between
> families? What about different soil/ice/river/hydrology models? I know one
> of our guiding principles is not to worry about the future too much, but a
> little thought for *very* little overhead would help significantly in the
> future. I think Forrest's first email was on the button, our primary
> assumption is that things have a default (up/down) orientation will be much
> harder to sustain in the muddy world (pun intended) of earth system models,
> and having two standard names is just more work than is necessary ...
>
> What I'm suggesting is that the guidelines for new "groups" of standard
> names could be different from those in the past. I'm also suggesting
> something that will make the business of *maintaining* lists (and soon,
> ontologies, easier).
>
> But having said all this, I dont feel so strongly about it that I intend to
> say any more on this, unless someone else feels strongly enough to force a
> vote ... :-)
>
> Cheers
> Bryan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Thu Jun 28 2007 - 10:29:28 BST
