I agree with Roy, that as long as the values can be reasonably
compared they should share a standard name.
It would be a good next step, though, to develop or adopt some
standard way to describe the methodology, or at least the instrumentation,
so that the user can allow for any distinction between e.g. microwave and
infrared brightness_temperature.
We're using an ancillary variable for this, but there may be some
other way to do it that we haven't thought of yet. Whatever method
is adopted (when/if one is) it needs to work for files that have data
from different instruments at different depths.
float TEMP(time, depth) ;
TEMP:standard_name = "sea_water_temperature" ;
TEMP:ancillary_variables =
"TEMP_Instrument_manufacturer, TEMP_Instrument_model
TEMP_Instrument_reference TEMP_Instrument_mount
TEMP_Instrument_serial_number TEMP_QC TEMP_QC_value
TEMP_QC_procedure TEMP_Accuracy TEMP_Precision TEMP_Resolution";
char TEMP_Instrument_manufacturer(depth, 20);
char TEMP_Instrument_model(depth,6);
...
Nan
On 8/26/11 9:05 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Not the first time this has cropped up on the CF list. The problem is that when the Standard Names started out they were designed as OPTIONAL terms to identify model fields that referred to a given geophysical phenomenon. There has been a sort of mission creep since then with standard names being considered by some as unique standardised labels for every data channel in a CF file, accelerated by some communities choosing to make Standard Names compulsory for their CF files. This of course creates the need for more and more information to get hung off the Standard Name tag.
>
> I continue to support the conclusion of these previous discussions, which is to keep methodologies out of Standard Names unless the methodology results in a significantly different phenomenon. There was quite a debate on this issue involving different types of sea surface temperature that you might care to look up in the archive.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Biard
> Sent: 26 August 2011 13:28
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names
>
> Hi.
>
> I've got a general question regarding standard names. I have had people
> I work with asking whether it would be acceptable to have a standard
> name that included methodology, such as microwave_brightness_temperature
> as opposed to infrared_brightness_temperature. My feeling has been that
> standard names are not supposed to have such differentiators, but I
> haven't read anything that states that directly. Are standard names for
> measurements limited to "essential" descriptions, or can they include
> specification of the way the measurement was acquired?
>
> Grace and peace,
>
> Jim Biard
>
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Fri Aug 26 2011 - 07:57:40 BST
