Hi Karl,
I understand what you are saying. The problem is that as CF expands into the observational domain the need arises to be able to handle data files at any stage of the processing cycle. Another problem is that 'raw' channels often persist - for example if physicists deploy a CTD package with a fluorometer on it we quite often get the raw fluorometer voltages in the fully processed data. Biologists ask us to retain the raw fluorometer data because they still have value.
Combine this with the decision made in the observational community to make the standard name field both mandatory and the primary identifier for a variable and we are faced with the situation where either standard names need to evolve into something very different from their original concept or we place restrictions on the applications for which CF is appropriate. My vote goes with the former.
Cheers, Roy.
>>> Karl Taylor <taylor13 at llnl.gov> 03/12/09 5:17 PM >>>
Dear all,
Perhaps I'm not following what's being proposed here, but I'm against
expanding the nature of the standard name from a definition of a
physical quantity, to something that includes an indication of its
potential uses (which admittedly would help in "discovery" searches). I
think we're asking too much of the standard name. I would be much more
comfortable with a proposal to develop a set of quasi-independent
components that more fully describe the data, but don't force the
information into the standard_name. One of the components would be the
"potential use" of the quantity (or a list of uses). The other
componnents would include perhaps the list I proposed in an email to
this list on 10/29/08 (i.e., quantity, medium, constituent,
specie_color, surface, process, etc.)
regards,
Karl
John Graybeal wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> I support you in principal. But not knowing of which points you were
> thinking, can I ask you to address situations in which the observation
> has units that are not in UD_Units?
>
> I am happy to make the 'raw_units' or 'alternate_units' attribute a
> separate proposal, if you think that is the best way to proceed. It
> will definitely be necessary to support observational data, of both
> science and instrumental flavors.
>
> John
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I think we should consider some particular use-cases and try to be as
>> much like
>> standard names for geophysical parameters as we can in our treatment
>> of these
>> unprocessedd quantities. I would suggest not deciding in advance that
>> we have
>> to treat them in different ways, because it's best to minimise the
>> complexity
>> of the convention. It's often tempting to regard something as a new
>> case and
>> invent new conventions for it, but it may be easier in the end to find
>> a way to
>> express it using structures we already have.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Jonathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http:// mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http:// mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
Received on Thu Mar 12 2009 - 15:48:12 GMT
