Hi Ute:
1. im not sure what this means: " I now finally find out that the new
approaches of Netcdf 4 are not implemented in the Java API, yet."
2. I would have thought "3D particle tracking" would be a trajectory.
how is it different?
John
On 10/11/2010 4:24 AM, Rich Signell wrote:
Ute,
I was thinking that you could use the proposed convention in 9.3.2 as
a workaround, with the "station" being each record. But I see now
that the coordinate variables for lon, lat need to be a function of
station, so as you say, that won't work.
Clearly there is a need for another Point Convention type to handle
the output from particle tracking models like this. I can think of at
least four models that would benefit from this convention right now,
including the NSF RAPID grant we are working on for 3D particle
tracking using LTRANS for the Deepwater Horizon Spill.
@Jonathan, Caron& Hankin: Can we revive your discussion? I'd be
happy to participate.
-Rich
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Ute Brönner<[email protected]> wrote:
Hei Rich,
I found that convention before, this was what I mentioned to Jonathan.
But first of all, this is not convention, yet, and secondly I have no stations
but a varying set of observations per timestep (neither stations nor
trajectories). I now write the data with redundant time as a limited dimension,
and records(time, latitude, longitude) and have
mass (record), radius(record) etc.
Thanks anyway,
Ute
Ute Brönner
www.sintef.com/marine_environment
Consider the environment before printing
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rich Signell
Sent: Freitag, 8. Oktober 2010 13:59
To: Ute Brönner
Cc: Jonathan Gregory; [email protected]; John Caron
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] point observation data in CF 1.4
Ute,
On this page:
https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/wiki/PointObservationConventions
It appears that your case *might* be handled by:
9.3.2 Ragged array (contiguous) representation
I'm pretty sure that this "ragged_row_count" feature *is* included in
NetCDF-Java, but John Caron (cc'd here) could confirm.
Please report back to this group if you find success (or perhaps even
if you don't!)
Thanks,
-Rich
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Ute Brönner<[email protected]> wrote:
Jonathan,
thanks for your answer! My troubles were related to shape and dimensions.
I now finally find out that the new approaches of Netcdf 4 are not implemented
in the Java API, yet.
I now use a record dimension which is unlimited and a limited time dimension.
Hope that works, otherwise, I have your address now :-)
Best regards,
Ute
Ute Brönner
www.sintef.com/marine_environment
Consider the environment before printing
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Gregory
Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Oktober 2010 19:13
To: Ute Brönner
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [CF-metadata] point observation data in CF 1.4
Dear Ute
You are right, the convention for timeseries of different lengths being
contained in one variable is not yet agreed. Some months ago John Caron, Steve
Hankin and I discussed it at length but did not quite manage to finish it,
unfortunately. So there isn't a CF convention for it at the moment.
but I have some trouble in writing the data.
What kind of trouble?
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
