Hi Jim,
I agree with Roy: I also think it is better to keep methodologies and instruments out of standard names and in ancillary attributes/variables. Otherwise, the std_name list will become even more unwieldy, and become nothing more than a documentation service for every model and instrument. In your case, I think it would be better that the frequency range/weighting/distribution could be included in some other attribute/variable.
Best wishes,
Philip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-
> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Lowry, Roy K.
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 6:05 AM
> To: Jim Biard; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names
>
> 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
>
> --
> Jim Biard
>
> Government Contractor, STG Inc.
> Remote Sensing and Applications Division (RSAD)
> National Climatic Data Center
> 151 Patton Ave.
> Asheville, NC 28801-5001
>
> jim.biard at noaa.gov
> 828-271-4900
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> --
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
> is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
> of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
> it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
> NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Fri Aug 26 2011 - 10:39:11 BST
