Dear Jim and Roy > So, to sum up, the standard name and definition would be: > surface_snow_cover_binary_mask: The value is 1 where the snow cover area > fraction is greater than a threshold, and 0 elsewhere. The threshold must be > specified by associating a scalar coordinate variable with the data variable > and giving the scalar coordinate variable a standard name of > surface_snow_area_fraction. The value of the scalar coordinate variable is > the threshold value. > > Does that look/sound right?
Yes, except that I think it should be surface_snow_binary_mask, for consistency with existing names. Roy subsequently suggested it should be presence_of_surface_snow. I guess that would have the same sort of meaning. I don't think we should use that phrase just for this case, though. There are two existing names with binary_mask and it's in the guidelines. We could change them all if people prefer to. I would argue that binary_mask has the advantage of indicating the data variable is 0 and 1. Another way to convey the same info would be with a missing data mask, and that could have a different standard name. If many binary_mask (or presence_of) names were requested we could no doubt devise something more general but there doesn't seem to be a need for that yet. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
