Steve Hankin wrote:
> Its approaching two weeks (Oct 27) since a revised "CF point
> observation Conventions" proposal was made:
>
> https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/PointObservationConventions
>
> https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/37
>
> Given the complexity of the proposal, it would be helpful if
> discussion happened sooner than later, including statements of support
> or issues to be resolved. Input is especially important from data
> providers who actually write point observation files.
I haven't commented on this new version because, as far as I understand
it, it will not work for data from surface moorings, and therefore won't
apply to most of the datasets in projects I'm involved with.
IF this is intended to be used for time series at multiple depths, then the
definition of "stationTimeSeries" would need to be changed from "a
time-series of data points at the same location" to "a time-series of data
points at the same X-Y location" - to make it more clear that this type
can hold time series data at multiple depths. The example would also
need to show how a dependent variable would be dimensioned to hold
2d data at each station.
In recent discussions on this list, it looks almost like there's some idea
that the "profile" feature type should be used for this kind of data. That
would be a very hard sell. The term profile, as used in the observational
community, is very different from time series - most importantly, it
indicates that Z varies with T. If moored station data is meant to be
covered by this specification, and if it won't fit into the "station"
feature
type, a term other than profile should be used.
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 Nov 12 2009 - 10:24:06 GMT
