Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave

[Nan Galbraith]

I agree completely. Thanks to all for keeping at it with this topic.

 * platform_roll_starboard_down
 * platform_yaw_fore_starboard
 * platform_pitch_fore_up
 * platform_surge_fore
 * platform_sway _port
 * platform_heave_up

There was some concern expressed about using port and starboard, because
satellite folks don't normally use those terms. I was unable to figure 
out exactly
who raised this point, the thread is long and sometimes my mail client 
makes the

sender of each message a little obscure.

I'm assuming even satellites have a 'front' - ADCPs don't, really, 
except by some
obscure convention set by the vendors - so presumably people will be 
able to figure

out which side is which, and these terms will be OK.

- Nan


On 9/7/18 4:07 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:


Good point,


So you'd prefer platform_roll_starboard_down and so on?


Cheers, Roy.



*From:* John Graybeal 
*Sent:* 07 September 2018 03:29
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave
Sorry if I missed a point, but joining the motion to platform_ will be 
much more findable. Platform roll for example is a really common 
expression.


John

On Sep 6, 2018, at 08:22, Lowry, Roy K. > wrote:



Dear Jim,


Looking good to me.


Cheers, Roy.



*From:* CF-metadata > on behalf of Jim Biard 
mailto:jbi...@cicsnc.org>>

*Sent:* 05 September 2018 17:38
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave

Roy, Jonathan,

I expect that surge, sway, and heave may well not have any "alternate 
direction" representations in the wild, but I recall that we found 
that the same is not true of pitch, roll, and yaw.


Should we define the "canonical" set in such a fashion that the sign 
convention is explicit and wait for people to request the others?


I guess that would be:

  * platform_starboard_down_roll
  * platform_fore_starboard_yaw
  * platform_fore_up_pitch
  * platform_fore_surge
  * platform_port_sway
  * platform_up_heave

Is that what we want?

Grace and peace,

Jim

On 9/5/18 12:10 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:


Dear Roy OK, yes. I agree with that too! We should not provide 
standard names for there is no use case yet. However, it's a good 
idea for foresee how this may be done, so that a neat solution is 
readily available when the day comes. Best wishes and thanks 
Jonathan On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 04:07:26PM +, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:


Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:07:26 + From: "Lowry, Roy K." 
  
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave Dear Jonathan, This isn't 
a desire to mandate, it's just an attempt to prevent the creation 
of six unnecessary Standard Names for sign conventions based on my 
knowledge and researches of oceanographic data that don't exist. 
Should anybody come up with a single example of the opposite sign 
convention in heave/sway/surge from any other domain then the 
additional Standard Names will obviously need setting up. Anybody 
know of any??? It also goes without saying the 'normal' conventions 
should leave the door open - for example 'upward heave' leaves the 
door open for a future 'downward heave'. This follows another 
principle of CF Standard Names which is that Standard Names should 
only set up when there is a demonstrable use case and not just in 
case a use case arises. Cheers, Roy. 
From: CF-metadata  
 on behalf of Jonathan 
Gregory  
 Sent: 05 September 2018 16:26
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave 
Dear Jim and Roy In general, we want CF to be able to describe the 
datasets that users want to describe, rather than mandating 
particular choices. Projects that use CF can do that, of course, 
like CMIP6 does, which prescribes the standard_names of the 
quantities to be submitted. 
Best wishes Jonathan 


Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 09:32:37 -0400 
From: Jim Biard   
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave
Roy, Good point! However (of course there has to be a 'but'!), are 
we OK with forcing people to modify their data to match our 
convention? Are there other situations where a standard name 
requires a certain representation? The existing datasets that 
people have mentioned are history, but they are also indicative of 
different sign conventions out there "in the wild". 
Grace and peace, Jim 
On 9/5/18 4:22 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:


Dear Jim, I think maybe you're doing more work than necessary. I 
see the work falling into three parts. 1) Revision of the 
definitions of heave/heave rate that are part of a new Standard 
Name that has yet to be accepted. 2) Creation of new Standard 
Names for Ken for sway/sway rate and surge/surge rate 3) Upgrade 
to the definitions of the existing Standard Names for pitch, roll 
and yaw. How about hard-wiring direction conventions for cases

Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave

[Jim Biard]

Nan,

That was my concern. As I have thought about it, we can make it clear in 
the definition text. I'll generate those later this week.


Jim


On 9/11/18 10:53 AM, Nan Galbraith wrote:

I agree completely. Thanks to all for keeping at it with this topic.

 * platform_roll_starboard_down
 * platform_yaw_fore_starboard
 * platform_pitch_fore_up
 * platform_surge_fore
 * platform_sway _port
 * platform_heave_up

There was some concern expressed about using port and starboard, because
satellite folks don't normally use those terms. I was unable to figure 
out exactly
who raised this point, the thread is long and sometimes my mail client 
makes the

sender of each message a little obscure.

I'm assuming even satellites have a 'front' - ADCPs don't, really, 
except by some
obscure convention set by the vendors - so presumably people will be 
able to figure

out which side is which, and these terms will be OK.

- Nan


On 9/7/18 4:07 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:


Good point,


So you'd prefer platform_roll_starboard_down and so on?


Cheers, Roy.



*From:* John Graybeal 
*Sent:* 07 September 2018 03:29
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave
Sorry if I missed a point, but joining the motion to platform_ will 
be much more findable. Platform roll for example is a really common 
expression.


John

On Sep 6, 2018, at 08:22, Lowry, Roy K. > wrote:



Dear Jim,


Looking good to me.


Cheers, Roy.


 

*From:* CF-metadata > on behalf of Jim Biard 
mailto:jbi...@cicsnc.org>>

*Sent:* 05 September 2018 17:38
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave

Roy, Jonathan,

I expect that surge, sway, and heave may well not have any 
"alternate direction" representations in the wild, but I recall that 
we found that the same is not true of pitch, roll, and yaw.


Should we define the "canonical" set in such a fashion that the sign 
convention is explicit and wait for people to request the others?


I guess that would be:

  * platform_starboard_down_roll
  * platform_fore_starboard_yaw
  * platform_fore_up_pitch
  * platform_fore_surge
  * platform_port_sway
  * platform_up_heave

Is that what we want?

Grace and peace,

Jim

On 9/5/18 12:10 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:


Dear Roy OK, yes. I agree with that too! We should not provide 
standard names for there is no use case yet. However, it's a good 
idea for foresee how this may be done, so that a neat solution is 
readily available when the day comes. Best wishes and thanks 
Jonathan On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 04:07:26PM +, Lowry, Roy K. 
wrote:


Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:07:26 + From: "Lowry, Roy K." 
  Subject: Re: 
[CF-metadata] Platform Heave Dear Jonathan, This isn't a desire to 
mandate, it's just an attempt to prevent the creation of six 
unnecessary Standard Names for sign conventions based on my 
knowledge and researches of oceanographic data that don't exist. 
Should anybody come up with a single example of the opposite sign 
convention in heave/sway/surge from any other domain then the 
additional Standard Names will obviously need setting up. Anybody 
know of any??? It also goes without saying the 'normal' 
conventions should leave the door open - for example 'upward 
heave' leaves the door open for a future 'downward heave'. This 
follows another principle of CF Standard Names which is that 
Standard Names should only set up when there is a demonstrable use 
case and not just in case a use case arises. Cheers, Roy. From: 
CF-metadata  
 on behalf of Jonathan 
Gregory  
 Sent: 05 September 2018 16:26
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave Dear Jim and Roy In 
general, we want CF to be able to describe the datasets that users 
want to describe, rather than mandating particular choices. 
Projects that use CF can do that, of course, like CMIP6 does, 
which prescribes the standard_names of the quantities to be 
submitted. Best wishes Jonathan


Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 09:32:37 -0400 From: Jim Biard 
  Subject: Re: 
[CF-metadata] Platform Heave
Roy, Good point! However (of course there has to be a 'but'!), 
are we OK with forcing people to modify their data to match our 
convention? Are there other situations where a standard name 
requires a certain representation? The existing datasets that 
people have mentioned are history, but they are also indicative 
of different sign conventions out there "in the wild". Grace and 
peace, Jim On 9/5/18 4:22 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:


Dear Jim, I think maybe you're doing more work than necessary. I 
see the work falling into three parts. 1) Revision of the 
definitions of heave/heave rate that are part of a new Standard 
Name that has yet to be accepted. 2) Creation of new Standard 
Names 

Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Dear Nan and Jim,


It was me, on my own volition, who raised concerns about the use of nautical 
terms to try and make the concepts domain-independent. However, 'port' is such 
an elegant way of saying 'left when facing forward' that I don't think we 
should resist it. Saw a nice definition for port  - 'The side of a platform 
that is on the left when one is facing forward.'


Cheers, Roy.


I have now retired but will continue to be active through an Emeritus 
Fellowship using this e-mail address.



From: CF-metadata  on behalf of Jim Biard 

Sent: 11 September 2018 16:37
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave


Nan,

That was my concern. As I have thought about it, we can make it clear in the 
definition text. I'll generate those later this week.

Jim

On 9/11/18 10:53 AM, Nan Galbraith wrote:
I agree completely. Thanks to all for keeping at it with this topic.

 * platform_roll_starboard_down
 * platform_yaw_fore_starboard
 * platform_pitch_fore_up
 * platform_surge_fore
 * platform_sway _port
 * platform_heave_up

There was some concern expressed about using port and starboard, because
satellite folks don't normally use those terms. I was unable to figure out 
exactly
who raised this point, the thread is long and sometimes my mail client makes the
sender of each message a little obscure.

I'm assuming even satellites have a 'front' - ADCPs don't, really, except by 
some
obscure convention set by the vendors - so presumably people will be able to 
figure
out which side is which, and these terms will be OK.

- Nan


On 9/7/18 4:07 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:

Good point,


So you'd prefer platform_roll_starboard_down and so on?


Cheers, Roy.



*From:* John Graybeal 

*Sent:* 07 September 2018 03:29
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave
Sorry if I missed a point, but joining the motion to platform_ will be much 
more findable. Platform roll for example is a really common expression.

John

On Sep 6, 2018, at 08:22, Lowry, Roy K. 
mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk> 
> wrote:

Dear Jim,


Looking good to me.


Cheers, Roy.



*From:* CF-metadata 
mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu> 
>
 on behalf of Jim Biard mailto:jbi...@cicsnc.org> 
>
*Sent:* 05 September 2018 17:38
*Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave

Roy, Jonathan,

I expect that surge, sway, and heave may well not have any "alternate 
direction" representations in the wild, but I recall that we found that the 
same is not true of pitch, roll, and yaw.

Should we define the "canonical" set in such a fashion that the sign convention 
is explicit and wait for people to request the others?

I guess that would be:

  * platform_starboard_down_roll
  * platform_fore_starboard_yaw
  * platform_fore_up_pitch
  * platform_fore_surge
  * platform_port_sway
  * platform_up_heave

Is that what we want?

Grace and peace,

Jim

On 9/5/18 12:10 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:

Dear Roy OK, yes. I agree with that too! We should not provide standard names 
for there is no use case yet. However, it's a good idea for foresee how this 
may be done, so that a neat solution is readily available when the day comes. 
Best wishes and thanks Jonathan On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 04:07:26PM +, 
Lowry, Roy K. wrote:

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 16:07:26 + From: "Lowry, Roy K." 
 
 Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] 
Platform Heave Dear Jonathan, This isn't a desire to mandate, it's just an 
attempt to prevent the creation of six unnecessary Standard Names for sign 
conventions based on my knowledge and researches of oceanographic data that 
don't exist. Should anybody come up with a single example of the opposite sign 
convention in heave/sway/surge from any other domain then the additional 
Standard Names will obviously need setting up. Anybody know of any??? It also 
goes without saying the 'normal' conventions should leave the door open - for 
example 'upward heave' leaves the door open for a future 'downward heave'. This 
follows another principle of CF Standard Names which is that Standard Names 
should only set up when there is a demonstrable use case and not just in case a 
use case arises. Cheers, Roy. From: CF-metadata 
 

 on behalf of Jonathan Gregory 
 
 Sent: 05 
September 2018 16:26
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Platform Heave Dear Jim and Roy In general, we want 
CF