Dear Aaron
Thank you for the suggestion. I have opened a CF trac ticket to propose such
a clarification at
http://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/123
Cheers
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from Aaron Sweeney <aaron.sweeney at noaa.gov> -----
> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:46:51 -0700
> From: Aaron Sweeney <aaron.sweeney at noaa.gov>
> CC: CF Metadata List <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] how to indicate a variable representing a physical
> quantity is an observation, a modelled value, a difference or
> residual, etc.
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/31.3.0
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> Thank you very much for your comment. The parenthetical
> "...from different sources /(such as observations and models)/" is
> missing from section 3.3 (Standard Name) of the CF Conventions v1.6
> (and draft v1.7). This is important for proper interpretation. On
> initial reading of the section 3.3, I interpreted the word "sources"
> to mean data providers. I would recommend adding your parenthetical
> to the documentation and possibly refer the reader to ACDD v1.3 to
> address the question of how to attribute a variable as originating
> from observation, model, or other, as suggested by John Graybeal.
>
> Cordially,
> Aaron
>
>
> >Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:03:48 +0000 From: Jonathan Gregory
> ><j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu Subject:
> >Re: [CF-metadata] how to indicate a variable representing a
> >physical quantity is an observation, a modelled value, a
> >difference or residual, etc. Message-ID:
> ><20141215140348.GA7463 at met.reading.ac.uk> Content-Type:
> >text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear Aaron
> >>I think there's a reason CF names don't naturally distinguish between measured or observed values?CF names tend to describe the meaning of the value, and explicitly avoids saying how it was derived. The derivation is reserved to other attributes, like the 'source' (which should distinguish between a model and an observation, though not in a computable way), or 'history'.
> >I agree with this remark of John's. In fact, the main purpose of the CF
> >standard names is to indicate which quantities should be regarded as
> >comparable. Usually, we want to compare quantities derived from different
> >sources (such as obs and models), so we give the corresponding quantities the
> >same standard names, in order to indicate they can be meaningfully compared:
> >that they are apples from different trees, rather than apples and oranges.
> >
> >Best wishes
> >
> >Jonathan
> >
>
>
> On 12/12/2014 12:46 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
> >Just yesterday (really!) I was looking at the almost-ready ACDD
> >1.3 convention, and saying "What is the 'coverage_content_type'
> >attribute good for?" It appears to be good for almost exactly what
> >you want. This attribute is 'highly recommended' for all NetCDF
> >variables, and is defined as "An ISO 19115-1 code to indicate the
> >source of the data (image, thematicClassification,
> >physicalMeasurement, auxiliaryInformation, qualityInformation,
> >referenceInformation, modelResult, or coordinate)." However, this
> >covers only 2/3 of what you want: physicalMeasurement for in-situ
> >observations, and modelResult for a value from a model. The
> >difference is also a modelResult in my opinion, but that doesn't
> >help your use case.
> >
> >If you are looking for a pure CF answer, there's not a complete
> >answer, but there are standard names that refer to differences --
> >these usually end with the phrase _anomaly (Definition: "anomaly"
> >means difference from climatology."); or there's one, umm, anomaly
> >that starts with difference_
> >(difference_of_air_pressure_from_model_reference). Because the
> >phrase _anomaly is already in 5 terms, it shouldn't be an issue to
> >add more as needed. And that conveniently bridges the above gap in
> >your use case.
> >
> >I think there's a reason CF names don't naturally distinguish
> >between measured or observed values?CF names tend to describe the
> >meaning of the value, and explicitly avoids saying how it was
> >derived. The derivation is reserved to other attributes, like the
> >'source' (which should distinguish between a model and an
> >observation, though not in a computable way), or 'history'.
> >
> >Hope that helps, at least a bit.
> >
> >John
> >
> >References:
> >* ACDD 1.3 convention, almost done now: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_1-3
> >* coverage_content_type attribute: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_1-3#coverage_content_type
> >* purpose of a standard name:
> >http://cfconventions.org/faq.html#stdnames_purpose
> >
> >---------------
> >John Graybeal
> >Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
> >MMI Ontology Registry and Repository: http://mmisw.org/orr
> >
> >
> >
> >On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:01, Aaron Sweeney <aaron.sweeney at noaa.gov
> ><mailto:aaron.sweeney at noaa.gov>> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >> I've looked through the latest CF Conventions and CF
> >>Standard Names documents, but have been unable to find an answer
> >>(or example) to the following question:
> >>
> >> How do I indicate that a variable representing a physical
> >>quantity is an in situ observation, a value that came from a
> >>model, or a difference or residual between an observation and a
> >>modelled value (observed minus modelled)?
> >>
> >> My initial thought was to use the same standard name for
> >>each variable, but provide a standard name modifier. But after
> >>reading the appendix on modifiers, they seem to be used for
> >>something else. The standard names themselves only describe the
> >>physical quantity, but not whether or not they are an observed
> >>value or modelled value.
> >>
> >> Please point me toward the appropriate documentation, if it
> >>exists. Thanks for your kind attention.
> >>
> >>Cordially,
> >>Aaron
> >>
> >>--
> >>Aaron D. Sweeney
> >>Water Level Data Manager
> >>
> >>Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES)
> >>University of Colorado at Boulder
> >>and
> >>NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
> >>Marine Geology and Geophysics Division
> >>325 Broadway, E/GC3
> >>Boulder, CO 80305-3328
> >>
> >>Phone: 303-497-4797, Fax: 303-497-6513
> >>
> >>DISCLAIMER: The contents of this message are mine personally and
> >>do not necessarily reflect any position of NOAA.
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>CF-metadata mailing list
> >>CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu <mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> >>http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >
>
> --
> Aaron D. Sweeney
> Water Level Data Manager
>
> Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES)
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> and
> NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
> Marine Geology and Geophysics Division
> 325 Broadway, E/GC3
> Boulder, CO 80305-3328
>
> Phone: 303-497-4797, Fax: 303-497-6513
>
> DISCLAIMER: The contents of this message are mine personally and do not necessarily reflect any position of NOAA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Thu Dec 18 2014 - 09:13:43 GMT
