For many (most in my world, which is more observational) applications, the information about the instrument orientations will not be absolute (most instruments can't measure their orientation that way because they don't know what the platform orientation is).
So not specifying whether it is absolute or relative in the name will lead to ambiguity (partially resolved by the definition, perhaps) and error. I suggest the desired concept be reflected by the standard name, to minimize long term confusion.
john
On Oct 21, 2010, at 08:19, Aleksandar Jelenak wrote:
> Nan Galbraith said the following on 10/20/2010 11:18 AM:
>> Is it implicit in the proposal that, if there is orientation
>> information only at the instrument level, it's absolute, but if
>> there's also platform orientation, they need to be considered
>> together?
>
> My idea is that both orientations are absolute, with the instrument-level being considered more accurate. Thus if a file would ever contain both "instrument_*" and "platform_*" standard names, better quality data would be in "instrument_*" names variables.
>
> One more idea that we discussed in my office was whether or not was worthwhile to indicate platform attitude-corrected data (roll/yaw/pitch). Something like appending "_with_attitude_correction" to the standard names. In the end we decided not go with that because this approach would require new names for latitude and longitude data and I did not think that would be accepted.
>
> -Aleksandar
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
John Graybeal <mailto:jgraybeal at ucsd.edu>
phone: 858-534-2162
System Development Manager
Ocean Observatories Initiative Cyberinfrastructure Project:
http://ci.oceanobservatories.org
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project:
http://marinemetadata.org
Received on Thu Oct 21 2010 - 14:28:20 BST
