Dear Randy

It looks like the resolution you want to indicate is the grid spacing, which
you say is homogeneous. Is that right? If so - this may be silly question
arising from not remembering what has previously been said - can you not work
it out as the difference between any pair of adjacent grid point coordinates?

Best wishes

Jonathan

----- Forwarded message from "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]> -----

> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 09:56:20 -0400
> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] how to capture horizontal spatial resolution of
>       imagery in a standard way
> 
> 
> 
> Folks:
> 
> We have done some more thinking about how to capture the resolution of 
> gridded observation data (this is a more accurate term than used in previous 
> posts - imagery) using a to-be-determined CF convention.  Note that a key 
> underlying assumption here is that the gridded data has a homogeneous 
> sampling interval.
> 
> Originally, I thought a cell_method related approach made sense, but the 
> resolution of elements in a data variable is not pertinent to the functional 
> intent of cell methods.
> 
> A suggestion from the board thought that a new coordinate type could be 
> defined to provide this capability.  The problem with this is that data 
> resolution is not a coordinate, but, rather, a size characteristic of each 
> element in the data variable containing the gridded observation data.
> 
> 
> 
> This brings you back to cells (1st sentence of chapter 7 - When gridded data 
> does not represent the point values of a field but instead represents some 
> characteristic of the field within cells of finite "volume," a complete 
> description of the variable should include metadata that describes the domain 
> or extent of each cell, and ....)
> 
> 
> 
> There are a variety of options available to support this including an 
> additional syntax for cell boundaries or cell measures, or a new "cell 
> resolution" that may only be associated with observation data.
> 
> 
> 
> The core of any of these approaches would be the specification of a numeric 
> resolution with its units.  Using the existing cell "(interval: value unit)" 
> as a model, a GOES-R 2 km at nadir gridded product would have an attribute 
> component that looks like:
> 
>  "(resolution: y = 0.000056 rad  x = 0.000056 rad)" if it were part of a 
> broader category (i.e. "bounds:" or "cell_measures"), or
> 
> 
> 
> "resolution: y = 0.000056 rad  x = 0.000056 rad", if it was not associated 
> with cell bounds or measures.  Note that the syntax to capture the resolution 
> would need to be flexible to handle the different cell shapes for observation 
> data.  "y" and "x" in these examples are intended to represent the spatial 
> coordinate variables.
> 
> 
> 
> Comments appreciated !
> 
> 
> 
> very respectfully,
> 
> 
> 
> randy
> 

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


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

Reply via email to