Hi All -
> I think the way CF use is developing in the observational community means we certainly need raw measurement standard names.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
I agree.
There are at least 3 classes here, maybe more. Parameters in engineering
units
that need some processing to become useful geophysical parameters could be
distinguished from ones that are components (like oxygen sensor
temperature,
or radiometer voltage and temperatures) that are of no direct interest
to users.
Then there are "reporting" parameters, like percent good pings from ADCPs,
which aren't geophysical variables but may be very useful to anyone
using the
data.
I'm not sure where we draw the line; do we create a standard name for
anything that any instrument can put out?
Is there a reason not to require that variables that can be converted
*directly*
to acceptable udunits should be converted when the data's put into NetCDF?
>>>> Heinke Hoeck <heinke.hoeck at zmaw.de> 3/12/2009 11:07 am >>>
>>>>
>
> I would propose a short suffix like '_raw'.
> Are the units free selectable for the '_raw' data? Should we add 'raw_unit'?
> I think the raw data are a proxy. This should be commented in the header.
>
I like the short version too, either prefix or suffix. The units question
is tricky - I don't know how many terms would be needed. Counts,
volts, degrees ... units for most raw parameters are in existing udunits
terms, and would not need modifiers. Allowing any raw_ variable
to use any udunit unit would be necessary, though.
Cheers - Nan
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Thu Mar 12 2009 - 10:15:58 GMT
