Re: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names
On 8/27/11 6:51 PM, John Graybeal wrote: OOI will be adopting and/or developing some standard vocabularies for many facets of instruments (manufacturer, model, 'type' (ick), possibly mount, likely a few other things. That's good news, at least minus the 'type' vocabulary; I'd be especially interested in the eventual list of types though, if only out of morbid curiosity. We'll also have to create or use an instrument description specification like yours, Nan. Can you tell me, what is instrument_reference? Instrument_reference is a URL (etc) that contains a description of the instrument. I was actually hoping this would point to a record in the MMI device ontology server, but that seems unlikely at this point. As I told Roy, possibly off the list, this field isn't very well implemented; it can point to a PDF of a spec sheet, an html page describing the instrument, or an entry in Roy's vocabulary server. Not interoperable, but the only thing I could come up with when I wanted it. And (this may be a question showing off my ignorance) do I correctly understand that (time, depth) means you are identifying the instrument for every measurement, not just every depth? The dimensions for the descriptive variables are (depth, string_lenth) because there's one entry for every depth; these are not on a time-varying basis in my data sets. So getting back to the original question, for automated sampling methodologies, I recall seeing at least one vocabulary that was particularly well suited, in addition to Roy's for a wide range of techniques. Nan, if your spec included TEMP_sensing_methodology for each variable, it would go a long way to a good answer, seems to me.. Yes, that would be a reasonable piece of information, at least for temperature, but I'm not aware of any vocabulary that's available - especially one that covers the wide range of sensors we use. We've got 20 or so observational data variables, and some have complex sensing methodology (long wave radiation's a good example of that). Then there are so many other factors, like time constants, that are as important as the methodology... An ontology would be REALLY useful here. Nan On Aug 26, 2011, at 07:06, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: 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. ___ 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
OOI will be adopting and/or developing some standard vocabularies for many facets of instruments (manufacturer, model, 'type' (ick), possibly mount, likely a few other things. We'll be sure to take a good look at your vocabularies, Roy. I particularly recall the methodology vocabulary -- that seems closest to a pure answer to Jim's original question. (The instrument 'type' in :MBARI's SSDS was much more coupled to manufacturing practices -- CTD for example describing the type of configuration one can buy, and not much about methodology of a particular measurement.) We'll also have to create or use an instrument description specification like yours, Nan. Can you tell me, what is instrument_reference? And (this may be a question showing off my ignorance) do I correctly understand that (time, depth) means you are identifying the instrument for every measurement, not just every depth? So getting back to the original question, for automated sampling methodologies, I recall seeing at least one vocabulary that was particularly well suited, in addition to Roy's for a wide range of techniques. Nan, if your spec included TEMP_sensing_methodology for each variable, it would go a long way to a good answer, seems to me.. John On Aug 26, 2011, at 07:06, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: 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
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
