Ute,
I was thinking that you could use the proposed convention in 9.3.2 as
a workaround, with the "station" being each record. But I see now
that the coordinate variables for lon, lat need to be a function of
station, so as you say, that won't work.
Clearly there is a need for another Point Convention type to handle
the output from particle tracking models like this. I can think of at
least four models that would benefit from this convention right now,
including the NSF RAPID grant we are working on for 3D particle
tracking using LTRANS for the Deepwater Horizon Spill.
_at_Jonathan, Caron & Hankin: Can we revive your discussion? I'd be
happy to participate.
-Rich
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Ute Br?nner <Ute.Broenner at sintef.no> wrote:
> Hei Rich,
>
> I found that convention before, this was what I mentioned to Jonathan.
> But first of all, this is not convention, yet, and secondly I have no stations but a varying set of observations per timestep (neither stations nor trajectories). I now write the data with redundant time as a limited dimension, and records(time, latitude, longitude) and have
> mass (record), radius(record) etc.
>
> Thanks anyway,
> Ute
>
> Ute Br?nner
> www.sintef.com/marine_environment
>
> ? ?Consider the environment before printing
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rsignell at gmail.com [mailto:rsignell at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rich Signell
> Sent: Freitag, 8. Oktober 2010 13:59
> To: Ute Br?nner
> Cc: Jonathan Gregory; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu; John Caron
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] point observation data in CF 1.4
>
> Ute,
>
> On this page:
> https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/PointObservationConventions
>
> It appears that your case *might* be handled by:
>
> 9.3.2 Ragged array (contiguous) representation
>
> I'm pretty sure that this "ragged_row_count" feature *is* included in
> NetCDF-Java, but John Caron (cc'd here) could confirm.
>
> Please report back to this group if you find success (or perhaps even
> if you don't!)
>
> Thanks,
> -Rich
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Ute Br?nner <Ute.Broenner at sintef.no> wrote:
>> Jonathan,
>> thanks for your answer! My troubles were related to shape and dimensions.
>> I now finally find out that the new approaches of Netcdf 4 are not implemented in the Java API, yet.
>> I now use a record dimension which is unlimited and a limited time dimension. Hope that works, otherwise, I have your address now :-)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ute
>>
>> Ute Br?nner
>> www.sintef.com/marine_environment
>>
>> ? ?Consider the environment before printing
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:jonathan at met.reading.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
>> Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Oktober 2010 19:13
>> To: Ute Br?nner
>> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: [CF-metadata] point observation data in CF 1.4
>>
>> Dear Ute
>>
>> You are right, the convention for timeseries of different lengths being
>> contained in one variable is not yet agreed. Some months ago John Caron, Steve
>> Hankin and I discussed it at length but did not quite manage to finish it,
>> unfortunately. So there isn't a CF convention for it at the moment.
>>
>>> but I have some trouble in writing the data.
>> What kind of trouble?
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Jonathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Richard P. Signell?? (508) 457-2229
> USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
> Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
>
--
Dr. Richard P. Signell?? (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
Received on Mon Oct 11 2010 - 04:24:58 BST
