Dear Randy
Yes, I would say that fire could be an area type, except that it would be nice
to be more specific about it. Does it mean wildfire? Expanding the area type
is not a slippery slope; the table was created in order to avoid expanding the
number of standard names because of the introduction of more types, as well as
so area type could be used as a dimension of data variables.
Cheers
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from Randy Horne <rhorne at excaliburlabs.com> -----
> Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 13:19:05 -0400
> From: Randy Horne <rhorne at excaliburlabs.com>
> To: "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: [CF-metadata] a conceptual question about "area_types"
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
>
> Folks:
>
> The current area_type table includes "cloud", "snow", and "vegetation". These are environmental conditions whose existence and location vary over time.
>
> In GOES-R, we are generating rainfall, fire, aerosol (smoke and dust), and volcanic ash product files. These product files contain statistics (e.g. min, max, mean, std dev) that are associated with only those regions on the earth where these environmental conditions are found. For the variables containing these statistics, we are using cell_methods. A "where fire" clause would make sense (if "fire" were in the area_type table). It would seem a "where fire" clause is conceptually the same as "where cloud".
>
> If they are the conceptually same, there would be value to expanding the area_type table. However, I can see a slippery slope forming as the area_type table could grow large.
>
> If they are not conceptually the same, what am I missing ?
>
> 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 -----
Received on Mon Jul 08 2013 - 13:11:05 BST
