Dear Aleksandar,
nice job! Putting your proposal on
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Standard_Names_For_Satellite_Observations#Proposal_.232
like this makes it easily tractable.
Sorry if I may be a little late, but upon reading through I have some minor
concerns about:
"relative_platform_azimuth_angle" and "relative_platform_azimuth_angle": in my
understanding "relative" denotes a (percent) fraction rather than a difference.
Therefore, I think this term could be misleading. Wouldn't
"platform_azimuth_angle_difference" be more precise?
Out of curiosity: isn't there a need to describe several other
platform/sensor/solar/viewing angles? It might help to refer to some figure
(e.g. on a web site) which illustrates the various geometrical aspects needed.
For example, I am wondering if "sensor zenith angle" and "sensor look angle"
aren't the same, only shifted by 180 degrees. It might still be ok to have two
different standard names for them (because they are different quantities), but
in this case a sentence should be added to the definition such as "Note that
zenith_angle and look_angle are related by zenith_angle = (look_angle + 180)
mod 360".
And, please excuse my ignorance, but
"covariance_between_constant_and_linear_terms_of_radiance_per_unit_wavenumber_correction_due_to_intercalibration"
does sound rather specific and incomprehensible to me, even if I read through
the definitions of
constant_term_of_radiance_per_unit_wavenumber_correction_due_to_intercalibration
and
linear_term_of_radiance_per_unit_wavenumber_correction_due_to_intercalibration.
Is this a general concept, or are these variables needed for one specific
satellite sensor? Do we run the "danger" to see many more such proposals with
other (inter)calibration concepts? I think, these definitions require a far
more extensive description (i.e. definition), again, for example pointing to a
web reference where the sensor concept and/or viewing geometry is described. It
may thus be better from the standard_name perspective to try and find a
somewhat more generalized term (if this is indeed sensor specific) and
require/request a comment attribute which would then detail the exact procedure
used. As an extreme (and perhaps unrealistic) suggestion, one could think about
"covariance_between_correction_terms_due_to_intercalibration". The comment
attribute would then have to specify that these are corrections of
"radiance_per_unit_wavenumber", and that the covariance refers to "constant and
linear terms".
Best regards,
Martin
PD Dr. Martin G. Schultz
IEK-8, Forschungszentrum Jülich
D-52425 Jülich
Ph: +49 2461 61 2831
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
