[CF-metadata] Standardizing how ensemble (realization) axes are encoded

From: Steve Hankin <steven.c.hankin>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 11:27:59 -0800

Jonathan,

On second though it is all thoroughly ambiguous, whether CF names its
axis standard_names for the collective or for the individual member.
"ensemble" seems immediately clear and short, compared to
"ensemble_member", which seems a bit labored. But I understand your
concern over consistency with "realization". Either choice is fine
with me.

     - Steve

============================================

On 11/15/2013 11:15 AM, Steve Hankin wrote:
>
> On 11/15/2013 10:30 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>> Dear Steve et al.
>>
>>> I support the idea that the term "ensemble" be allowed (by whatever
>>> machinery) as an alias for "realization".
>> It'd be fine to have an standard_name alias, I agree, but I think it
>> should be
>> "ensemble_member", not "ensemble". The ensemble is the collection of
>> members
>> (aka realizations).
>
> It feels a bit backwards, doesn't it? By this logic shouldn't the
> standard_name "time" be "snapshot" instead -- named for its individual
> members, rather than for its collective?
>
> "time" "depth", "longitude" and "latitude" axes all represent the
> collection of many individual points. By analogy an "ensemble" axis
> would be the collective of many individual members. It's true that,
> the choice of "realization" as a standard_name took the opposite
> outlook. hmmm ... Are we better off to maintain consistency with
> CF's well known geo-spatial axis standard_names? or consistency with
> "realization"?
>
> - Steve
>>
>>> axis="E" also seems like an appropriate step to maintain consistency
>>> with other well known axis types, given the high likelihood that
>>> ensemble axes will become commonplace in the future.
>> That would require a change to the convention to be proposed on a
>> trac ticket
>> by someone.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Jonathan
>
Received on Fri Nov 15 2013 - 12:27:59 GMT