Dear Jonathan,
Couple of points to back up Seth. First is that the primary domain of the CF conventions is ocean-atmosphere modelling. Whilst this has expanded into observational data in the atmosphere and the ocean, it has never to my knowledge been extended to seismics. My only experience with seismic data has been through the EU GeoSeas project and there the policy was to adopt seismic industry standards for the data files such as SEG-Y. Secondly, the whole point of CF from my perspective is to provide the foundation for generic tools to display data from multiple disciplines by establishing patterns of co-ordinates, data and semantics. Deviations from these principles for specific domains would, in my opinion, seriously degrade the value of CF as an interoperability tool. Cheers, Roy. Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to enquir...@bodc.ac.uk. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent. ________________________________ From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of Maccarthy, Jonathan K <jkm...@lanl.gov> Sent: 10 April 2017 17:54 To: Seth McGinnis Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] high sample rate (seismic) data conventions Hi Seth, Thanks for the very helpful response. I can understand the argument for explicit coordinates, as opposed to using formulae; I think it solves several problems. The assumption of a uniform sample rate for the length of a continuous time series is deeply engrained in most seismic software, however. Changing that assumption may lead to other problems (but maybe not!). Data volumes for a single channel can be 40-100 4-byte samples per second, which is something like 5-12 GB per channel per year uncompressed. Commonly, dozens of channels are used at once, though some of them may share time coordinates. It sounds like this use-case is similar in volume to what you've used, and may be worth trying out. Just to be clear, however, would I be correct in saying that CF has no accepted way of representing the data as I've described? Thanks again, Jonathan On Apr 7, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Seth McGinnis <mcgin...@ucar.edu<mailto:mcgin...@ucar.edu>> wrote: Hi Jonathan, I would interpret the CF stance as being that the value in having explicit coordinate variables and other ancillary data to accompany the data outweighs the cost of increased storage. There are some cases where CF bends away from that for the sake of practicality (see, e.g., the discussion about external file references for cell_bounds in CMIP5), but overall, my sense is that the community feels that it's better to have things explicitly written out in the file than it is to provide them implicitly via a formula to calculate them. Based on my personal experiences, I think this is the right approach. (In fact, I take it even further: I prefer to avoid data compression entirely and to keep like data with like as much as possible, rather than splitting big files into smaller pieces.) I have endured far, far more suffering and toil from (a) trying to figure out what's wrong with a file that violates some implicit assumption (like "there are never gaps in the time coordinate") and (b) dealing with the complications of various tactics for keeping file sizes small than I ever have from storing and working with very large files. YMMV, of course. What are your data volumes like? I'm working at the terabyte scale, and as long as my file sizes stay under a few dozen GB, I don't really even bother thinking about anything that affects the file size by less than an order of magnitude. Cheers, Seth McGinnis ---- NARCCAP / NA-CORDEX Data Manager RISC - IMAGe - CISL - NCAR ---- On 4/7/17 9:55 AM, Maccarthy, Jonathan K wrote: Hi all, I’m curious about the suitability of CF metadata conventions for seismic sensor data. I’ve done a bit of searching, but can’t find any mention of how CF conventions would store high sample-rate data sensor data. I do see descriptions of time series conventions, where hourly or daily sensor data samples are stored along with their timestamps, but storing individual timestamps for each sample of a high sample rate sensor would unnecessarily double the storage. Seismic formats typically don’t store time vectors, but instead just store vectors of samples with an associated start time and sampling rate. Could someone please point me towards a discussion or existing conventions on this topic? Any help or suggestion is appreciated. Best, Jon _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata@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. ________________________________
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
