[CF-metadata] standard names for?variables?in?'raw?engineering' units

From: Philip J. Cameronsmith1 <cameronsmith1>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:56:08 -0700 (PDT)

Hi,

I share Jonathan's concerns. I also know the value of having well
documented output.

Could both be satisfied by either:

1) Creating a new list of NON_standard_names for such purposes, with
a lower level of control and scrutiny,

or

2) Expecting the data creators to provide appropriate details for such
instrument specific variables in a comment attribute, and leaving the
standard_name blank?

Both would have the advantage that the definitions could be more easily
adjusted in the future as instruments evolve.

Best wishes,

      Philip


On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, John Graybeal wrote:

> On Mar 13, 2009, at 12:58 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>
>> Dear John
>>
>> It appears from your examples that these "raw" values are very specific to
>> the technology being used. Under what circumstances can they be compared
>> usefully from different data sources, without knowing the identity of the
>> equipment? If they can't usefully be compared, why do they need standard
>> names? (Sorry if these questions reiterate points you made initially.)
>
> The use case is that I'm searching for sea water temperature data. (I'm using
> standard names because that is one of the best ocean science data naming
> conventions available.) Currently I will not find data that is in netCDF
> files in the searched repository, but is not convertible to canonical units.
> By allowing these standard names I can find that data. Once the data is
> found, I can either: (a) manually examine the metadata to see if
> transformation algorithms are supplied, (b) query the provider of the data,
> or (c) attempt to infer or derive appropriate transformations from other
> information that is available.
>
> The key (missing) piece that is being supplied by the standard name is the
> discovery piece.
>
> (As often happens today, when people go back into old data sets -- which
> itself is happening more and more often -- they find themselves executing one
> of steps (a) thru (c) anyway, due to insufficient metadata about the source
> of the data and the processes used to create it. I have seen proposals
> elsewhere for improving that situation in netCDF files, and it is my
> expectation that CF will evolve to accommodate that need, sooner or later.
> Then the process of using the newly discovered data can become more
> automated.)
>
> John
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2009, at 12:58 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>
>> Dear John
>>
>> It appears from your examples that these "raw" values are very specific to
>> the
>> technology being used. Under what circumstances can they be compared
>> usefully
>> from different data sources, without knowing the identity of the equipment?
>> If they can't usefully be compared, why do they need standard names? (Sorry
>> if these questions reiterate points you made initially.)
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Jonathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http:// mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
> John
>
> --------------
> John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org> -- 831-775-1956
> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http:// marinemetadata.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http:// mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith Atmospheric, Earth, and Energy Division
pjc at llnl.gov Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
+1 925 4236634 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA94550, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Mar 13 2009 - 12:56:08 GMT