On 2010-12-17 16:57, Christopher Barker wrote:
> I think the OP's question really is:
>
> should one use a different standard name for a predicted, rather than a measured, quantity?
>
> I think the answer is no, as I've seen all sorts of model output without anything in the standard name indication anything
> about it being a forecast -- I think that information should be provided by the file-wide meta-data, i.e. your users should
> know what the general content of the file are.
I think that in the case of the NOAA/CO-OPS data, the distinction is more subtle than observed vs predicted. The prediction is
explicitly based only on certain effects (especially tides) and does not account for storm surge and other phenomena. Secondly,
in our case both datasets are associated with individual water-level stations and are offered by the same SOS (Sensor
Observation Service, an Open Geospatial Consortium specification), so we need separate names to distinguish these two in the
list of datasets offered for that station.
Apparently the suggested name sea_surface_height_amplitude_due_to_equilibrium_ocean_tide was satisfactory.
Regards,
Jeff DLB
--
Jeff de La Beaujardi?re, PhD
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Sr Systems Architect, Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Program Office
1100 Wayne Ave #1225, Silver Spring MD 20910 USA
+1 301 427 2427
Jeff.deLaBeaujardiere at noaa.gov
Received on Mon Dec 20 2010 - 08:19:57 GMT
