Dear Evan,
Thanks for your suggestions.
Evan Manning wrote on 10/18/10 11:30 PM:
The names below mix "satellite" and "instrument" differently than I'm
used to.
I started with "satellite_*" names but then wanted to generalize since
remote sensing instruments are not only carried on satellites. But you
brought up an important distinction that the observation geometry of an
instrument can be different from the generic one associated with the
entire spacecraft.
I recommend changing:
instrument_zenith_angle -> satellite_zenith_angle
instrument_azimuth_angle -> satellite_azimuth_angle
satellite_scan_angle -> satellite_view_angle
I think the "instrument_*" names are more applicable as they allow for
either instrument-specific or spacecraft-generic geometries. I also
think being able to distinguish between the two observation geometries
is important and would like to have sets of standard names for both. So
a data provider can clearly signal what is given, even for data from the
same instrument.
To summarize:
1) Use "instrument_zenith_angle", "instrument_azimuth_angle", and
"instrument_scan_angle" for precise, instrument-specific observation
geometry.
2) Use "platform_zenith_angle", "platform_azimuth_angle", and
"platform_view_angle" for generic satellite (here generalized to
"platform") observation geometry.
3) Mixing names from these two sets is allowed, whatever is more
applicable for the zenith, azimuth, and scan/view angle data.
Too complicated?
And add:
instrument_scan_angle
The angle between the line of sight from an instrument and its
reference scan position.
Agree.
-Aleksandar
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
