[CF-metadata] Standard attributes for anomaly

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:04:44 +0100

Dear Roy

The number_of_observations and status_flag are problematic because they may
apply to several variables with different unmodified standard names and it's
not desirable to duplicate the information. That leaves detection_minimum and
standard_error, which are more like anomaly in principle. I am inclined to
think that standard_error might be better described as a cell_method, since
it's a statistical operation that refers to how the values of the cell might
vary (over repeated measurements).

I agree that it would be natural to describe anomaly as a modifier if we
need to make a special provision for anomalies, as David suggested. In fact
this has been discussed before and it would fit the convention, I think. My
view is that if there are only half-a-dozen use-cases, it's not a problem to
have standard names for them including "anomaly". I think that's better
because to me it seems more robust to have the information glued together in
the standard name, and it avoids adding to the convention.

Best wishes

Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from rmendelss gmail <rmendelss at gmail.com> -----

> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:38:49 -0700
> From: rmendelss gmail <rmendelss at gmail.com>
> To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
> CC: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard attributes for anomaly
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
>
> Hi Jonathan:
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 2016, at 5:28 AM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > (a) in practice the standard name modifiers have caused
> > complications, discussed in trac tickets, which makes it a less attractive
> > mechanism, and
>
> Before I respond further, can you give more detail on this, what are the problems and why these problems would be relevant to anomalies.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Roy
>

----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Mon Apr 04 2016 - 09:04:44 BST