Martin Juckes wrote:
Dear Martin,
If "burden" is simply the global integral of "content", then I think
there is no need for it. The standard name allows us to distinguish
among different quantities we want to measure, and if an integral,
average, or standard deviation of the quantity is computed, then that is
normally indicated in the cell_methods attribute.
[I'm not absolutely positive about the following, but I think I've got
it right.]
Normally you would simply define scalar dimensions for longitude and
latitude and indicae the range of values (in your case the global
domain) in a cell_bounds attribute. Alternatively, in the case of
longitude and latitude for the global domain, As I understand it, the
bounds attribute is not required but implied as described in the
paragraph at the end of
http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/documents/cf-conventions/1.1/cf-conventions.html#cell-methods
I would appreciate Jonathan or someone confirming the above.
It is true that we have adopted special standard names to indicate
vertically integrated quantities ("content"), and so one could argue why
not also adopt a special name ("burden") to integrate global amounts? I
don't have a good answer, but my preference would be to avoid a new
standard name for the integral of a quantity defined by another standard
name unless we can come up with a compelling argument against this.
Best regards,
Karl
> > "we are suggesting `_burden' to > indicate a global integral"
>
> > I am sorry, I realize that I did not read your previous emails carefully
>
> > enough. But my comment shows that the use of burden is ambigous, as it is
>
> > also used in the community for the column integral. I would suggest to
>
> > call it global_integral if this is what you want.
>
> >
>
> If approved, it should be clear to users that `_content' and `_burden'
> are related but different. `_content' is certainly not unambiguous in
> itself, it only becomes unambiguous by being part of the convention. My
> feeling is that the two concepts, the existing `_content' and the
> proposed `_burden' are sufficiently close that there is significant
> benefit in keeping to the same name structure, rather than introducing
> '...integral..'.
>
> I was not following the discussion when `_content' was adopted, but it
> appears that it has been settled that it is appropiate to use this
> structure rather than `column_integral', which would be the obvious
> analogue of `global_integral'. Hence, in order to have a consistent
> syntax within CF I'd prefer to stick with '_burden',
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Fri Jan 25 2008 - 10:37:27 GMT
