Erik,
The condition you are describing would definitely be best served by a
(low,high] bounds condition (exclusive lower, inclusive upper). I think we
need to maintain some form of consistency regarding bounds for the sake of
users and automated software, and I feel that double-inclusive bounds are a
bad plan, but I also think you have posed a use case that points out a
weakness in the convention about bounds. I'm now going to sit around and
think too much about the implications of doing (low,high] bounds without
any metadata to indicate which way the bounds are to be interpreted, then
get back to you with more thoughts.
Grace and peace,
Jim
[image: CICS-NC] <
http://www.cicsnc.org/>Visit us on
Facebook <
http://www.facebook.com/cicsnc> *Jim Biard*
*Research Scholar*
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC <
http://cicsnc.org/>
North Carolina State University <
http://ncsu.edu/>
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information <
http://ncdc.noaa.gov/>
*formerly NOAA?s National Climatic Data Center*
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
e: jbiard at cicsnc.org
o: +1 828 271 4900
*Connect with us on Facebook for climate
<
http://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIclimate> and ocean and geophysics
<
http://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIoceangeo> information, and follow us on
Twitter at _at_NOAANCEIclimate
<
http://www.twitter.com/NOAANCEIclimate>and _at_NOAANCEIocngeo
<
http://www.twitter.com/NOAANCEIocngeo>.*
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Erik Quaeghebeur <
E.R.G.Quaeghebeur at tudelft.nl> wrote:
> Dear Karl,
>
>
> Thanks for your reaction.
>
> I think one could argue that a "sample" taken *on* the second is most
>> representative of an interval extending from half a second prior to the
>> sample time and half a second following the sample time, [?]
>>
>> On the other hand, if there is some finite response response time of your
>> instrument (say, of order 1 sec), you could argue that a sample taken at
>> time t really represents an average over some preceding interval, [?]
>>
>
> I hadn't considered taking the sampling times as representatives of
> lower-level intervals. That will often be the case. But I think that to
> avoid having to know all details of the underlying data generation process,
> we may assume for purposes of the bounds variable for the derived
> statistics that the samples are instantaneous. (Feel free to correct me.)
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Erik
>
> --
> https://ac.erikquaeghebeur.name
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180326/6876993a/attachment.html>
Received on Mon Mar 26 2018 - 20:54:50 BST
