I did not mean to argue for putting all that metadata into CF-1; I was simply responding to the discussion of standard names for raw measurement predecessors to geophysical parameters. I just wanted to point out that there is a class of raw measurements that cannot be mapped to a single downstream geophysical parameter. These measurements are of interest to a segment of the modeling community, who, for better or worse, are comfortable working with CF-1 metadata (and somewhat less so with FGDC and ISO extensions).
________________________________________
From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Aleksandar Jelenak [Aleksandar.Jelenak at noaa.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:23 PM
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] instruments in standard names/CF
Lynnes, Christopher S. said the following on 3/13/2009 1:53 PM:
> There may be other ways in CF-1 for accounting for these differences;
Why not use other metadata standards for this kind of information? CF
convention is lightweight and, in my view, should be kept like that.
For satellite remote sensing, can't the FGDC with Remote Sensing
Extension or the new ISO 19115 standards better capture information such
as instruments, their channels, channel spectral properties, and such?
It seems to me that too much is being asked of the 'standard_name'
attribute.
-Aleksandar
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Fri Mar 13 2009 - 13:42:10 GMT
