[CF-metadata] standard_names for emissions - part 2: species

From: Schultz, Martin <m.schultz>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:56:59 -0000

Hi Jonathan,

   unless I missed anything, your comment appears to be the only one on our proposal so far. Thanks for your support.

   Concerning the re-organisation of sectors into an additional variable dimension, we don't think that this is a viable option. Firstly, current tools all assume that sectors are found in individual variables. Secondly, the number of sectors can vary by species, so you end up with different dimension sizes in different files -- not impossible, but rather ugly. I'd rather see progress in the development of a CF grammar, whereby it's not individual standard_names that are cast in XML, but rather the rules how names are created and then some sort of dictionary mapping which will describe which combinations are possible and which ones aren't...

   In short: mainly for (important) practical reasons, we'd like to stick with our original proposal as is.

Cheers,

Martin



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 7:33 PM
> To: Schultz, Martin
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard_names for emissions -
> part 2: species
>
> Dear Martin and Angelika
>
> Your proposal looks very careful and sensible to me. The new
> chemical species and processes will fit the existing
> patterns. I support the use of
> tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X
>
> One comment, though. Since all the processes are
> due_to_emission_from_Y, where Y is a sector of activity, I
> would like the raise the question of whether it would be a
> good idea to keep Y out of the standard name and store it in
> some other fashion, probably a [scalar] coordinate variable?
> As usual, this is a question about an essentially arbitrary
> boundary. We decided not to do it with chemical species in
> order to make sure everything makes sense chemically in
> standard names, but perhaps in order to limit the number of
> standard_names we might factor out this new distinction? An
> analogy would be with area_type and region, which we have now
> generalised in this way (though some area_types of particular
> importance do appear in standard names). I can imagine there
> could be a practical advantage of being able to contain the
> emissions of a particular species from all the sectors in a
> single data variable, if Y were made a dimension. Another
> reason is that the Y are getting some way from being
> "geophysical", which is the core purpose of standard_name
> descriptions.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besuchen Sie uns auf unserem neuen Webauftritt unter www.fz-juelich.de
Received on Fri Jun 10 2011 - 07:56:59 BST