Karl,
To my understanding (then and now), the use case is explicitly not what your definition describes. The entire point of the request was to provide a label that was clearly distinguished from the typical concept of ensemble size.
John
On Jul 21, 2015, at 16:36, Karl Taylor <taylor13 at llnl.gov> wrote:
> 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> 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
>>> 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/20150721/20cf5eda/attachment.html>
Received on Tue Jul 21 2015 - 22:52:21 BST
