Yes please, I've wanted the ability to specify something like "error_estimate" for some time too. Even if the calculations are not done in exactly the same way -- they could even be off by an order of magnitude -- being able to compare them is meaningful. And it's extremely valuable to be able to answer the query "Which variables have error estimates?"
So if we can some up with a standard way to represent this it will be extremely helpful.
John
On Jul 1, 2013, at 13:00, Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu> wrote:
> I think that these are fairly important QC checks for wind and current
> data, and that they deserve to have standard names to make them
> more useful. Although the algorithms may differ between instruments,
> and may even be proprietary, these variables are often the most useful
> way to provide information about the reliability of the geophysical
> measurements.
>
> I had asked about the best way to label this parameter for ADCP data
> several years ago, but I wasn't able to explain why standard_error wasn't
> appropriate (it's a little outside my field).
>
> Could we use a standard name modifier like 'instrument_error',
> or even just 'error', to convey the meaning of instrument-provided
> error information? That would be much simpler than requesting a
> name for each instrument type (although I suppose there may be
> only a handful of those).
>
> Thanks - Nan
>
> On 7/1/13 1:10 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>> Dear Randy
>>
>> If it is very product-specific, is it really a geophysical quantity which needs
>> a standard name? I mean, are there data from several sources for this quantity
>> which should be regarded as comparable, and which therefore should have a
>> common standard name?
>>
>> If the answer is Yes, then I would suggest you propose a standard name which
>> explicit names the algorithm, like e.g. isccp_cloud_area_fraction.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from "rhorne at excaliburlabs.com"<rhorne at excaliburlabs.com> -----
>>
>>> From: "rhorne at excaliburlabs.com"<rhorne at excaliburlabs.com>
>>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:28:15 -0400
>>> Subject: [CF-metadata] how to represent a non-standard error
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Folks: the GOES-R ground system generates a derived motion winds product.
>>> Accompaning each wind speed& direction in the product is the amount of
>>> error associated withe the vector. This error is not a standard_error, but
>>> an error estimate based on a custom algorithm. Because this is not a
>>> standard_error, it would seem that using a standard_error standard_name
>>> modifier would be misleading. Any thoughts on how to represent this
>>> product-specific error in the NetCDF file ? (The best idead I could come up
>>> with so far is to establish an ancillary data relationwhip between the wind
>>> speed/direction variables and the error variable, and use the error
>>> variable's long_name to describe the error) very respectfully, randy
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
>
>
> --
> *******************************************************
> * Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
> * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
> * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
> * Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
> *******************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
------------------------------------
John Graybeal
Senior Data Manager, Metadata and Semantics
T +1 (408) 675-5545
F +1 (408) 616-1626
skype: graybealski
Marinexplore
920 Stewart Drive
Sunnyvale, CA
Received on Mon Jul 01 2013 - 15:19:30 BST
