Dear all,
I wonder if the following might also meet requirements of the use case:
name: *ensemble_size*
*
*
description: The number of member realizations in an ensemble. This
name provides context for any specific realization, which might not be
co-located with the other members of the ensemble.
Karl
On 7/20/15 9:49 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
> To save others the lookup, the use case phrasing that Mark signed on
> to were these words: "In my use case, the whole ensemble is not
> present, I only have a subset of the members. I have a metadata
> element telling me how many members there were at the time the
> ensemble was created, which I would like to encode." The entire
> thread is titled 'realization | x of n', but it is pretty, umm, rich
> with detail.
>
> The last email before discussion went silent appears to be mine:
>
>> Modified to fit Mark's use case, I think suitable text is:
>>
>> name: *original_ensemble_size*
>> *
>> *
>> description: The number of member realizations in the originally
>> constituted ensemble. This provides context for any specific
>> realization, for example orienting a member relative to its original
>> group (even if the group is no longer intact).
>>
>> This does not mention forecasting, preserves the origination concept,
>> and gives a bit of context, without constraining the application. It
>> could even be an ensemble of observations, or cat videos, or ... you
>> get the idea.
>
> I will let someone else provide the example of how that is associated
> with the variable, it will be more authoritative!
>
> John
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 14:42, Karl Taylor <taylor13 at llnl.gov
> <mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> I didn't quite understand how the standard name gets associated with
>> a variable (containing 1 or more realizations from the ensemble).
>> Someone said it was through a scalar coordinate variable, but I don't
>> see how the ensemble member is a function of the ensemble size, so
>> why would this be appropriate?
>>
>> Could you supply an example?
>>
>> Also, I didn't follow why "original" was included in "original
>> ensemble size". Surely, you wouldn't report this number unless you
>> thought the ensemble size was pretty much set and wouldn't change.
>> In that case there shouldn't be a need for a "modified ensemble
>> size", so wouldn't "ensemble size" suffice?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/15 9:24 AM, Hedley, Mark wrote:
>>> Hello CF
>>>
>>> Late last year we had a discussion about storing
>>> original_ensemble_size
>>> in a CF file
>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2014/thread.html#57756
>>>
>>> There were a few options discussed, with John Graybeal making the
>>> suggestion
>>> original_ensemble_size
>>> /description: The number of members constituting an ensemble./
>>> for a new standard_name definition, which seemed to fit the case
>>> very well
>>>
>>> It does not seem to have been adopted into the standard names list
>>> as yet.
>>>
>>> Please may this name and definition be adopted, or reasons not to
>>> detailed here?
>>>
>>> thank you
>>> mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150721/2e295314/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Tue Jul 21 2015 - 17:36:08 BST
