Hi Seth,
Thank you for this. I'll get onto this straight away.
Cheers
Sean
-----Original Message-----
From: Seth McGinnis [mailto:mcginnis at ucar.edu]
Sent: 23 January 2015 15:12
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] variable depth as a dimension in oceanographic models
Hi Sean,
You can't make depth into a dimension unless it's one-dimensional and monotonic, which would give it a one-to-one correspondence with model_level_number. It sounds like that's not the case here.
I believe what you want to do is to declare depth as an auxiliary coordinate variable by adding the name of the depth variable to the "coordinates" attribute of your data variables for currents. Sections 5,
5.2 and 6.2 of the CF spec cover auxiliary coordinates.
That ought to be sufficient for depth to be automatically included when a user selects one of the currents as an output parameter. (And if it's not, I would say that means the data portal software doesn't understand CF very well, and needs some fixing up.)
Cheers,
--Seth
Seth McGinnis
NARCCAP Data Manager
IMAGe - CISL - NCAR
On 1/23/2015 3:56 AM, Gaffney, Sean P. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Sean Gaffney from the British Oceanographic Data Centre here.
> Apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place, but I could use some advice please.
>
> I've been supplied with some numerical model data representing
> vertical and horizontal currents in 40 depth layers in the North
> Atlantic, as CF compliant files. The existing dimensions are
> longitude, latitude, model_level_number and time. However, I've also
> been supplied in the file with depth for each 3-D cell, but this has
> just been supplied as a normal variable.
>
> This means that, if someone accesses the BODC model delivery portal,
> unless they explicitly select depth as an output parameter along with
> currents, they won't get the depth data, but just the
> model_level_number as an indicator of the vertical position of the
> model output in the water column. Feedback from some users is that
> actual depth values in metres are required to make full use of the
> current data, but that this can be lost by having to select depth as an independent additional variable.
>
> I wondered could this potential problem be resolved by converting
> depth into a dimension in the netcdf files? I'm uncertain though of
> whether this will work as the values will be different in every grid
> point, and therefore I'd like advice on whether this is a wise or
> practical thing to do.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Sean Gaffney
> BODC
>
>
> _ ________________________________ _ 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
>
_______________________________________________
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.
Received on Fri Jan 23 2015 - 08:29:30 GMT
