Chris,
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Christopher Barker
<Chris.Barker at noaa.gov> wrote:
> On 1/2/11 6:11 PM, Rich Signell wrote:
>>
>> But they are not the same thing. ?They are the inverse.
>
> yes, of course, but they carry exactly the same information, do they not.
Yes, one could be inferred from the other.
> Why have two ways to express the same information?
>
>> ?Yes, it would
>> be possible to have data sets providers create NcML for every ROMS
>> dataset that has ever been written and serve the data with a
>> land_binary_mask instead of a sea_binary_mask.
>
> well, I suppose it may be a question of whether there are more data
> providers or data consumers...
Since most consumers use some kind of tool, I would says it's more a
question of whether there are more data providers or more CF-compliant
tool developers. And since many tool developers use NetCDF-Java or
some other package to enable CF compliance, perhaps there are really
not so many software changes to be made.
>
> That also implies that there are a bunch of ROMS-output netcdf files that
> already have a sea_binary_mask variable, and are therefor not currently
> CF-compliant. Is that the case? Do we want to add things to the standard to
> make common, but not compliant, use cases compliant? Perhaps so.
I think "Perhaps so" is exactly right. The advantage of making it
easier for providers to standardize their datasets vs the additional
burden to CF-compliant tool developers.
-Rich
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Chris Barker<Chris.Barker at noaa.gov>
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/30/2010 2:40 PM, Rich Signell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> CF Standard Name Team:
>>>>
>>>> I would like to request a new standard_name="sea_binary_mask" defined as
>>>>
>>>> sea_binary_mask ? ? ? X_binary_mask has 1 where condition X is met, 0
>>>> elsewhere. 1 = sea, 0 = land.
>>>>
>>>> This is used by the popular ROMS ocean model, and perhaps others.
>>>>
>>>> The new "sea_binary_mask" would join the existing "land_binary_mask",
>>>> which has 1 = land, 0 = sea.
>>>>
>>>
>>> which makes it completely redundant. How hard it is to translate a
>>> sea_binary_mask into a land_binary mask?
>>>
>>> as an end user, now all my code has to look for both, despite them being
>>> the
>>> same thing.
>>>
>>> Isn't it an ideal to have only one standard way to express a given
>>> quantity?
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
> Oceanographer
>
> Emergency Response Division
> NOAA/NOS/OR&R ? ? ? ? ? ?(206) 526-6959 ? voice
> 7600 Sand Point Way NE ? (206) 526-6329 ? fax
> Seattle, WA ?98115 ? ? ? (206) 526-6317 ? main reception
>
> Chris.Barker at noaa.gov
>
--
Dr. Richard P. Signell?? (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
Received on Mon Jan 03 2011 - 12:35:10 GMT
