Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-18 Thread John Caron
Hi Sara: Thanks for adding your example to the mix. This appears to be a timeseries at a single x,y location with all the measurements on single, but different levels (?) Because these are single level, I would be inclined to use a variation of the station representation. One possibility is t

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-16 Thread John Caron
Hi Roy, Nan: Let me try to see where the mapping between the two classifications is currently at: Lowry, Roy K wrote: Dear All, I come from Nan's community with the added complication of exposure to CSML through working with NDG. From this position in BODC we have developed a collection o

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-15 Thread Richard Signell
on observational data manager, which is a different perspective to > an observational data ingestor. > > Cheers, Roy. > > ____________ > From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On > Behalf Of Nan Galbraith [ngalbra...@wh

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-15 Thread Lowry, Roy K
el for them. Cheers, Roy. From: Richard Signell [rsign...@gmail.com] Sent: 15 November 2009 15:00 To: Lowry, Roy K Cc: ngalbra...@whoi.edu; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review Roy, I come fro

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-15 Thread Lowry, Roy K
tive to an observational data ingestor. Cheers, Roy. From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Nan Galbraith [ngalbra...@whoi.edu] Sent: 13 November 2009 17:42 To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CF point obse

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-13 Thread Sara Haines
Dear Nan and John: I've been monitoring this conversation for just a short period. So I apologize ahead for chiming in so late in the game. It is very important for observational data model to represent the actual system that is deployed. The point that Nan and others have raised is a need

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-13 Thread John Caron
Nan Galbraith wrote: Hi John - This file has a single variable from a single mooring deployment. A complete mooring deployment file would have 3 (or 4) depth coordinate variables, one each for temperature, velocity, and salinity measurements, since we measure temperature everywhere and add veloc

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-13 Thread Nan Galbraith
Hi John - This file has a single variable from a single mooring deployment. A complete mooring deployment file would have 3 (or 4) depth coordinate variables, one each for temperature, velocity, and salinity measurements, since we measure temperature everywhere and add velocity or salinity at sel

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-13 Thread John Caron
Hi Han: Ok, let me understand what you have before I comment on whether it fits in: netcdf OS_NTAS-2009_T_R { dimensions: time = UNLIMITED ; // (3033 currently) depth = 5 ; latitude = 1 ; longitude = 1 ; variables: float time(time) ; time:axis = "T" ; float depth(depth)

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-13 Thread Nan Galbraith
Hmm, I think this is an unfortunate choice of terms - we make a fairly clear distinction between profile data and station data - but I don't think it's just a local semantic problem. While I realize that the storage for multiple profiles and multiple-depth time series data are similar, I still

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-12 Thread Don Murray
Nan- Alternatively, it seems like you could use a stationTimeSeries and just have different locations (stations) to indicate the different depths. The x/y would be the same, but the z would be different for each location. It sounds like you are interested in a time series at each depth rathe

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-12 Thread John Caron
Nan Galbraith wrote: Steve Hankin wrote: Its approaching two weeks (Oct 27) since a revised "CF point observation Conventions" proposal was made: https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/PointObservationConventions https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/37 Given the complexity of the propo

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-12 Thread Nan Galbraith
Steve Hankin wrote: Its approaching two weeks (Oct 27) since a revised "CF point observation Conventions" proposal was made: https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/PointObservationConventions https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/37 Given the complexity of the proposal, it would be helpf

Re: [CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-11-09 Thread Steve Hankin
Hi All, Its approaching two weeks (Oct 27) since a revised "CF point observation Conventions" proposal was made: https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/PointObservationConventions https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/37 Given the complexity of the proposal, it would be helpful if discuss

[CF-metadata] CF point observation Conventions ready for review

2009-10-27 Thread John Caron
I have complete a new version of the CF point observation Conventions at: https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/PointObservationConventions Discussion is at: https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/37 I have incorporated various feedback from the past year, and made a preliminary implementation