Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for stations
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:26:55 -0700 From: Jeffrey F. Painter paint...@llnl.gov Subject: [CF-metadata] standard names for stations To: cf-metadata cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Message-ID: 4e5588bf.2090...@llnl.gov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed The draft version 1.6 of the CF Conventions manual recommends use of two standard names which don't exist yet but are needed to describe discrete data such as observations from stations or other discrete points. So I'd like to propose the following two standard names: - station_description : variable of character type containing a description of a time series station - wmo_platform_id : variable of integer type, containing the WMO identifier of an observing station or other platform - Jeff Painter Hi, I clearly see the need for this. Concerning station_description, I think this is useful whether it is a time series or not. There is a need to describe the actual location for the station. E.g. describe the surface, horizon, and other aspects that may affect the observations. Concerning wmo_platform_id, I think Nan Galbraiths suggestion using an id and a naming authority is useful and more flexible than specifying a WMO reference directly. Concerning my institution, all stations operated by us, whether being WMO stations or not, always have an internal ID. Not all stations have a WMO id. It may even be useful to be able to use multiple ids for stations to cover situations like the one I mention. NACCD is good but it does not have the momentum that CF has. Many other such discovery conventions for NetCDF files exist and are used, most of course differing only slightly. I believe they will merge in time, but for now I think NACDD is less used than CF. I certainly agree it should be promoted (and we will probably move towards it), but these things take time. Thus I would prefer put as much information as possible as CF-compliant variables in the dataset, even if it means duplicating them as global attributes for discovery purposes. All the best Øystein -- Dr. Oystein Godoy Norwegian Meteorological Institute P.O.BOX 43, Blindern, N-0313 OSLO, Norway Ph: (+47) 2296 3000 (switchb) 2296 3334 (direct line) Fax:(+47) 2296 3050 Institute home page: http://met.no/ ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Re: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names
Hi Jim, Not the first time this has cropped up on the CF list. The problem is that when the Standard Names started out they were designed as OPTIONAL terms to identify model fields that referred to a given geophysical phenomenon. There has been a sort of mission creep since then with standard names being considered by some as unique standardised labels for every data channel in a CF file, accelerated by some communities choosing to make Standard Names compulsory for their CF files. This of course creates the need for more and more information to get hung off the Standard Name tag. I continue to support the conclusion of these previous discussions, which is to keep methodologies out of Standard Names unless the methodology results in a significantly different phenomenon. There was quite a debate on this issue involving different types of sea surface temperature that you might care to look up in the archive. Cheers, Roy. -Original Message- From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Biard Sent: 26 August 2011 13:28 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names Hi. I've got a general question regarding standard names. I have had people I work with asking whether it would be acceptable to have a standard name that included methodology, such as microwave_brightness_temperature as opposed to infrared_brightness_temperature. My feeling has been that standard names are not supposed to have such differentiators, but I haven't read anything that states that directly. Are standard names for measurements limited to essential descriptions, or can they include specification of the way the measurement was acquired? Grace and peace, Jim Biard -- Jim Biard Government Contractor, STG Inc. Remote Sensing and Applications Division (RSAD) National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Ave. Asheville, NC 28801-5001 jim.bi...@noaa.gov 828-271-4900 ___ CF-metadata mailing list 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
Re: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names
I agree with Roy, that as long as the values can be reasonably compared they should share a standard name. It would be a good next step, though, to develop or adopt some standard way to describe the methodology, or at least the instrumentation, so that the user can allow for any distinction between e.g. microwave and infrared brightness_temperature. We're using an ancillary variable for this, but there may be some other way to do it that we haven't thought of yet. Whatever method is adopted (when/if one is) it needs to work for files that have data from different instruments at different depths. float TEMP(time, depth) ; TEMP:standard_name = sea_water_temperature ; TEMP:ancillary_variables = TEMP_Instrument_manufacturer, TEMP_Instrument_model TEMP_Instrument_reference TEMP_Instrument_mount TEMP_Instrument_serial_number TEMP_QC TEMP_QC_value TEMP_QC_procedure TEMP_Accuracy TEMP_Precision TEMP_Resolution; char TEMP_Instrument_manufacturer(depth, 20); char TEMP_Instrument_model(depth,6); ... Nan On 8/26/11 9:05 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: Hi Jim, Not the first time this has cropped up on the CF list. The problem is that when the Standard Names started out they were designed as OPTIONAL terms to identify model fields that referred to a given geophysical phenomenon. There has been a sort of mission creep since then with standard names being considered by some as unique standardised labels for every data channel in a CF file, accelerated by some communities choosing to make Standard Names compulsory for their CF files. This of course creates the need for more and more information to get hung off the Standard Name tag. I continue to support the conclusion of these previous discussions, which is to keep methodologies out of Standard Names unless the methodology results in a significantly different phenomenon. There was quite a debate on this issue involving different types of sea surface temperature that you might care to look up in the archive. Cheers, Roy. -Original Message- From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Biard Sent: 26 August 2011 13:28 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names Hi. I've got a general question regarding standard names. I have had people I work with asking whether it would be acceptable to have a standard name that included methodology, such as microwave_brightness_temperature as opposed to infrared_brightness_temperature. My feeling has been that standard names are not supposed to have such differentiators, but I haven't read anything that states that directly. Are standard names for measurements limited to essential descriptions, or can they include specification of the way the measurement was acquired? Grace and peace, Jim Biard -- *** * Nan Galbraith(508) 289-2444 * * Upper Ocean Processes GroupMail Stop 29 * * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution* * Woods Hole, MA 02543* *** ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Re: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names
Hi Nan, It would be really neat from my point of view if your ancillary variables were to include a link to a published vocabulary of instruments (in addition not instead of your existing fields). As you probably know, I can offer you one (http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/list/L22/) Cheers, Roy. -Original Message- From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Nan Galbraith Sent: 26 August 2011 14:58 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names I agree with Roy, that as long as the values can be reasonably compared they should share a standard name. It would be a good next step, though, to develop or adopt some standard way to describe the methodology, or at least the instrumentation, so that the user can allow for any distinction between e.g. microwave and infrared brightness_temperature. We're using an ancillary variable for this, but there may be some other way to do it that we haven't thought of yet. Whatever method is adopted (when/if one is) it needs to work for files that have data from different instruments at different depths. float TEMP(time, depth) ; TEMP:standard_name = sea_water_temperature ; TEMP:ancillary_variables = TEMP_Instrument_manufacturer, TEMP_Instrument_model TEMP_Instrument_reference TEMP_Instrument_mount TEMP_Instrument_serial_number TEMP_QC TEMP_QC_value TEMP_QC_procedure TEMP_Accuracy TEMP_Precision TEMP_Resolution; char TEMP_Instrument_manufacturer(depth, 20); char TEMP_Instrument_model(depth,6); ... Nan On 8/26/11 9:05 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: Hi Jim, Not the first time this has cropped up on the CF list. The problem is that when the Standard Names started out they were designed as OPTIONAL terms to identify model fields that referred to a given geophysical phenomenon. There has been a sort of mission creep since then with standard names being considered by some as unique standardised labels for every data channel in a CF file, accelerated by some communities choosing to make Standard Names compulsory for their CF files. This of course creates the need for more and more information to get hung off the Standard Name tag. I continue to support the conclusion of these previous discussions, which is to keep methodologies out of Standard Names unless the methodology results in a significantly different phenomenon. There was quite a debate on this issue involving different types of sea surface temperature that you might care to look up in the archive. Cheers, Roy. -Original Message- From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Biard Sent: 26 August 2011 13:28 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names Hi. I've got a general question regarding standard names. I have had people I work with asking whether it would be acceptable to have a standard name that included methodology, such as microwave_brightness_temperature as opposed to infrared_brightness_temperature. My feeling has been that standard names are not supposed to have such differentiators, but I haven't read anything that states that directly. Are standard names for measurements limited to essential descriptions, or can they include specification of the way the measurement was acquired? Grace and peace, Jim Biard -- *** * Nan Galbraith(508) 289-2444 * * Upper Ocean Processes GroupMail Stop 29 * * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution* * Woods Hole, MA 02543* *** ___ CF-metadata mailing list 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
Re: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names
Hi Jim, I agree with Roy: I also think it is better to keep methodologies and instruments out of standard names and in ancillary attributes/variables. Otherwise, the std_name list will become even more unwieldy, and become nothing more than a documentation service for every model and instrument. In your case, I think it would be better that the frequency range/weighting/distribution could be included in some other attribute/variable. Best wishes, Philip --- Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab. --- -Original Message- From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata- boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Lowry, Roy K. Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 6:05 AM To: Jim Biard; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names Hi Jim, Not the first time this has cropped up on the CF list. The problem is that when the Standard Names started out they were designed as OPTIONAL terms to identify model fields that referred to a given geophysical phenomenon. There has been a sort of mission creep since then with standard names being considered by some as unique standardised labels for every data channel in a CF file, accelerated by some communities choosing to make Standard Names compulsory for their CF files. This of course creates the need for more and more information to get hung off the Standard Name tag. I continue to support the conclusion of these previous discussions, which is to keep methodologies out of Standard Names unless the methodology results in a significantly different phenomenon. There was quite a debate on this issue involving different types of sea surface temperature that you might care to look up in the archive. Cheers, Roy. -Original Message- From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata- boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Biard Sent: 26 August 2011 13:28 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names Hi. I've got a general question regarding standard names. I have had people I work with asking whether it would be acceptable to have a standard name that included methodology, such as microwave_brightness_temperature as opposed to infrared_brightness_temperature. My feeling has been that standard names are not supposed to have such differentiators, but I haven't read anything that states that directly. Are standard names for measurements limited to essential descriptions, or can they include specification of the way the measurement was acquired? Grace and peace, Jim Biard -- Jim Biard Government Contractor, STG Inc. Remote Sensing and Applications Division (RSAD) National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Ave. Asheville, NC 28801-5001 jim.bi...@noaa.gov 828-271-4900 ___ CF-metadata mailing list 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 ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
