Dear Vegard
Thanks for your email. Now I understand what you mean by confidence i.e. a
confidence level for a value which has uncertainty. I agree, this is like other
uses for standard_name modifiers, in particular the standard_error modifier.
You need to link it to an extra dimension, and I suggest that the best way
to do this would be through a standard_name. For instance, define the
standard_name modifier of confidence_interval ("confidence" alone seems a bit
vague - that's why I didn't understand what you meant), and state that if
a variable has this modifier, it must have a coordinate variable or scalar
coordinate variable whose standard_name is confidence_level. Both the modifier
and the standard_name would be additions to CF.
> Regarding precipitation, bounds seem to do better. But I am not happy about
> the fact that there must be an artificial upper boundary for precipitation.
> Also, I am not sure if bounds are intended to be used with overlapping
> ranges?
Yes, ranges may overlap; that is fine. It might be nicer to have a way to
specify an open-ended range, but we don't have a way, and just using a large
value instead works fine with existing machinery.
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
