On 03/21/2013 02:12 PM, John Maurer wrote:
I believe the
canonical units in UDUNITS parlance would translate to m-3, which is
what I find in the standard name table for other number_concentration_*
quantities.
Yup. If the dimension of the physical quantity is number per volume,
then the SI
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:14 PM, John Caron ca...@unidata.ucar.edu wrote:
On 3/21/2013 11:17 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Dave Allured - NOAA Affiliate
dave.allu...@noaa.gov wrote:
You are making a set of technical
use specifications, with
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:14 PM, John Caron ca...@unidata.ucar.edu wrote:
Ive always just worked with the W3C profile of ISO8601
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
So theres the question of supporting full ISO8601, or just a profile.
That looks like a good profile to me -- and documented,
Hi Aleksandar,
I don't think anyone has responded to your email below, so I am responding, in
part, so it doesn't get lost in the recent blizzard of emails on other topics
:-).
I still much prefer the alternative that was proposed:
time_sample_interval_due_to_collocation
I think this is
Dear All,
I see Pandora's Box opening before us. I have been down the road of setting up
my equivalent to Standard Names (the BODC Parameter Usage Vocabulary) with
concepts that include specification of the biological entity, which is why I
have a vocabulary with getting on for 30,000
On 03/22/2013 03:57 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
An additional point is that I would prefer not to have the semantics of
what was measured encoded into the units of measure.
I couldn't agree more. The NIST also agrees. See sections 7.4 and 7.5 of
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec07.html.
Hi Roy,
First off, i thought ICES tried to persuade you way before SDN that this was
perhaps not the right approach ;)
Anyway, I would agree that the species entity needs to be separated from the
'standard name'. I think discussions in SDN tech about the draft biological
format for ODV would
Hi, since my knowledge on standard name conventions is limited I am not well
placed to give input on the raised
request for a new item in the list.
However I share the concern to include the biological entity in the Standard
Name.
Am I wrong If I say that the suggested
Dear Ken
The cell_methods would indicate standard deviation. This allows you to say
whether you mean standard deviation over time, latitude, longitude or whatever
dimension, so it's more precise - which one do you mean, in fact?
By the way, in cell_methods there should be a space after : e.g.
Hi Ken,
As hoped, Jonathan, has already responded. I'm off on a tangent here ...
I want here to comment on a *wee* (and admittedly debatable) side
metadata issue -- the proper use of the long_name attribute. The
long_name is typically used as the source of a title string for plots
and
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jonathan Gregory
j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk wrote:
The cell_methods would indicate standard deviation. This allows you to say
whether you mean standard deviation over time, latitude, longitude or whatever
dimension, so it's more precise - which one do you mean,
Steve,It is a good point you make and we can revisit our long_names used in this product (our netCDF files are still in development). I think the parameter like sea water temperature (it is not actually SST) was left out since there are many of these files, each with a different parameter
Chris,On Mar 22, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Jonathan Gregoryj.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk wrote:The cell_methods would indicate standard deviation. This allows you to saywhether you mean standard deviation over time,
Hi all,
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I just want to go on the record as being
(fairly strongly) opposed to allowing *anything* to be expressed as a string
if there's a reasonable numeric representation we can use instead.
Maybe I'll change my mind after the community has made the jump
Hi Philip,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Cameron-smith, Philip
cameronsmi...@llnl.gov wrote:
I don't think anyone has responded to your email below, so I am responding,
in part, so it doesn't get lost in the recent blizzard of emails on other
topics :-).
Thank you very much! I was
Agree 'collocation' is dominant in my experience as well.
Note the name says interval, but the definition says difference. To me the
term 'difference' is more appropriate, as 'interval' has a connotation of
recurrence.
That said, if no one else finds this worth emphasizing, I'll concur with
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, John Graybeal jgrayb...@ucsd.edu wrote:
Note the name says interval, but the definition says difference. To me
the term 'difference' is more appropriate, as 'interval' has a connotation of
recurrence.
Nice catch! Yes, difference sounds better to me, too. So:
Dear Seth,
I believe your concerns nicely confirm Michael's and my viewpoint that the
real issue is a lack of functionality in the underlying netcdf library. If
done properly, the datetime representation in the file would of course be
numerical (python and certainly most other languages
-Original Message-
From: Aleksandar Jelenak - NOAA Affiliate
[mailto:aleksandar.jele...@noaa.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 2:06 PM
To: John Graybeal
Cc: Cameron-smith, Philip; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New Standard Names for Satellite Data
On Fri,
I think the other obvious concern is that you could no longer use the standard
name as the be-all and end-all of searching for comparable data. If the
entity of interest, say the species, is in an auxiliary term, the search has to
magically connect the standard name with the auxiliary term,
20 matches
Mail list logo
