Dear Nan, John, Jeff
I think variable attributes are generally better than global attributes,
because it's possible or indeed likely that you might have data from different
sources in the same file. I prefer data variables to describe themselves. We
can provide global attributes as a default for
code
to parse the string infinitely easier.
Cheers, Roy.
-Original Message-
From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu
[mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 16 September 2011 15:32
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names
...@cgd.ucar.edu cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu
To: Jonathan Gregory j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Sent: Fri Sep 16 23:13:56 2011
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for stations
Hi Jonathan,
My vote would go to something that is both human
Heres a few comments on this discussion from my POV:
1) to summarize whats already in CF1.6:
section A9.2:
It is strongly recommended that there should be a station variable
(which may be of any type) with the attribute cf_role=”timeseries_id”,
whose values uniquely identify the stations.
It
Dear Jeff
platform_primary_id: variable of character type containing an ID or
name of an observing station or other platform
platform_primary_id_authority: variable of character type,
specifying the naming authority or system used to choose
platform_primary_id
platform_secondary_id:
Refining Jonathan's point, though I too would accept the original:
I like the concept of merging, though merging the authority and the ID per the
example makes it more likely that only a human can process the identifier
(where does the authority stop and the identifier start?). The world of the
Since we're storing station information in a variable, would it be more
normal to use variable attributes for naming authority, description,
and (optionally) naming_authority_reference (for URLS)?
Also, I have to admit that it might be going overboard to have a standard
name or set of standard
] standard names for stations
Dear Nan
Do we need to specify whether the _id is numeric or character? I'd
prefer to leave that to the user and his code.
Yes, I think we have to specify this for standard_names; in the standard
name table, all of them are either assigned units = numeric
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:33:26 +0100
From: Jonathan Gregory j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for stations
Dear Nan
Do we need to specify whether the _id is numeric or character? I'd
prefer to leave that to the user and his code.
Yes, I think we have
Dear Nan
Do we need to specify whether the _id is numeric or character? I'd prefer
to leave that to the user and his code.
Yes, I think we have to specify this for standard_names; in the standard name
table, all of them are either assigned units = numeric, or stated to be
string. Of course, a
. Painter [paint...@llnl.gov]
Sent: 27 August 2011 01:27
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for stations
It seems to me that we would need four standard_names to satisfy
everyone's needs. How does this sound?
platform_name: variable of character type containing
-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey F. Painter [paint...@llnl.gov]
Sent: 27 August 2011 01:27
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for stations
It seems to me that we would need four standard_names to satisfy
everyone's
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
There is also a 'station_name' as recommended attribute in a discrete
geometries section, see
http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/documents/cf-conventions/1.6/aphs02.html/
and even more info on the station (like station_info anf station_elevation) in
the Example H.3. Timeseries of station data
: [CF-metadata] standard names for stations
good point - The auxiliary coordinate variable station_name in these
examples is missing a standard_name; and indeed station_description or
station_name would fit the bill. I'd be happy with either or both.
For that matter, if one of the stations
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 :
16 matches
Mail list logo
