Hi  all -

 From a CDM developer perspective, an auxiliary coordinate is "just as
 good" as a regular coordinate variable. The extra requirements on
 coordinate variables are helpful in knowing when to optimize, eg
 monotonicity allows one to efficiently find the index given the
 coordinate value.

Are we reaching agreement that fill values are allowed in auxiliary
coordinate variables, aside from

 In my understanding, we have always prohibiting missing data in aux
 coord vars, and in section 9 we explicitly allowed for the first
 time. Evidently we should be clear, one way or the other (which was
 one of the intentions of the defect ticket I opened).

Should we be discussing this on the trac ticket? That would provide a
better trail - Mailman isn't very good if you're searching for a thread
like this - the subject doesn't mention coordinates.

Thanks -
Nan



On 3/26/2012 10:05 AM, Jim Biard wrote:
I am working with satellite data, and I, for example, have timestamps that arrive in the data stream along with sensor measurements. I can have independent missing values in both my time variable and my measurement variables. I want to preserve all the incoming data, and the restriction on "true" coordinate variables having no missing values prevents me from designating my time variable as a coordinate variable. If I want to represent the relationship between the time variable and the measurement variables, the only recourse I have is to designate the time variable as an auxiliary coordinate variable in my measurement variables.

In the observational world, you cannot always be assured of meeting all the restrictions imposed on "true" coordinate variables. In fact, other restrictions imposed on coordinate variables might not be met (monotonicity, for example), even though the contents of the variable do function properly as coordinate information for another variable. The only mechanism that I am aware of within CF to document the relationship is the auxiliary coordinate attribute.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Nan Galbraith <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    Hi Jonathan -

    For underway CTD profiles (gliders and floats, too, I'd think) if
    the pressure
    sensor fails intermittently, you can approximate Z by
    interpolating over
    time, assuming there are good values along the track.  In "final"
    data, we might
    do that, but we might like to present raw data in CF files, too.
    So, yes, this data
    would be useful, with fill values here and there in the pressure
    record.

    Are we getting into a grey area that might be outside the scope
    of the CF
standard - judgements made about the usefulness of data? Having all your
    coordinates seems like an excellent  NetCDF "best practice" and
    could certainly
    be a "rule" for many tools, but it could preempt the use of the
    CF standard for
    some kinds of observational data.

    Cheers -
    Nan


    On 3/26/12 10:48 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:

        Dear Nan and John

        It's a good thing we're having this discussion! In my
        understanding, we have
        always prohibiting missing data in aux coord vars, and in
        section 9 we
        explicitly allowed for the first time. Evidently we should be
        clear, one way
        or the other (which was one of the intentions of the defect
        ticket I opened).

        The restriction on coord vars not having missing data is, I
        think, hard to
        avoid because they are required to be distinct and monotonic.

        In Nan's case:

            For something like towed CTD data, you might have a
            period of time where
            data from the pressure sensor is missing. If neither the
            coordinate or aux
            coordinate can contain null values, does this mean the
            only options are
            interpolating Z or removing that section of data?

        When the sensor is missing, does that mean the data can't be
        geolocated? As
        you know, geolocation is one thing CF tries hard to do. Is
        the data useful if
        you don't know where it comes from? Perhaps you know in some
        other way?

        In John's case

            Consider a geosynch satellite with lat/lon aux
            coordinates. the
            nature of the image is that there are many points around
            the outside
            of the image that are not located on the earth. i dont
            see any good
            choices other than to put missing values there for lat/lon..

        Bert has coincidentally mentioned a similar case (not on the
        list). I tend to
        agree that if index space contains locations that simply do
        not exist, you
        could put missing data in aux coord vars, but I think this
        needs a change to
        the CF convention.

            To add insult to injury, it seems possible that there are
            valid data
            values at these locations. Not sure about that however.
            Can anyone
            with geosynch data expertise comment?

        As in Nan's case, I am curious about how the data can be
        useful if it doesn't
        have a location.

        Best wishes

        Jonathan
        _______________________________________________
        CF-metadata mailing list
        [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
        http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata



-- *******************************************************
    * Nan Galbraith        Information Systems Specailist *
    * Upper Ocean Processes Group            Mail Stop 29 *
    * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                *
    * Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 <tel:%28508%29%20289-2444> *
    *******************************************************



    _______________________________________________
    CF-metadata mailing list
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata




--
Jim Biard
Research Scholar
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites
Remote Sensing and Applications Division
National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801-5001

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
828-271-4900



_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata


_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata


--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith                        (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group            Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543                                *
*******************************************************



_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Reply via email to