Yes please, I've wanted the ability to specify something like "error_estimate" 
for some time too. Even if the calculations are not done in exactly the same 
way -- they could even be off by an order of magnitude -- being able to compare 
them is meaningful.  And it's extremely valuable to be able to answer the query 
"Which variables have error estimates?"

So if we can some up with a standard way to represent this it will be extremely 
helpful.

John

On Jul 1, 2013, at 13:00, Nan Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think that these are fairly important QC checks for wind and current
> data, and that they deserve to have standard names to make them
> more useful. Although the algorithms may differ between instruments,
> and may even be proprietary, these variables are often the most useful
> way to provide information about the reliability of the geophysical
> measurements.
> 
> I had asked about the best way to label this parameter for ADCP data
> several years ago, but I wasn't able to explain why standard_error wasn't
> appropriate (it's a little outside my field).
> 
> Could we use a standard name modifier like 'instrument_error',
> or even just 'error', to convey the meaning of instrument-provided
> error information?  That would be much simpler than requesting a
> name for each instrument type (although I suppose there may be
> only a handful of those).
> 
> Thanks - Nan
> 
> On 7/1/13 1:10 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>> Dear Randy
>> 
>> If it is very product-specific, is it really a geophysical quantity which 
>> needs
>> a standard name? I mean, are there data from several sources for this 
>> quantity
>> which should be regarded as comparable, and which therefore should have a
>> common standard name?
>> 
>> If the answer is Yes, then I would suggest you propose a standard name which
>> explicit names the algorithm, like e.g. isccp_cloud_area_fraction.
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> ----- Forwarded message from 
>> "[email protected]"<[email protected]>  -----
>> 
>>> From: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:28:15 -0400
>>> Subject: [CF-metadata] how to represent a non-standard error
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Folks:   the GOES-R ground system generates a derived motion winds product.
>>>  Accompaning each wind speed&  direction in the product is the amount of
>>> error associated withe the vector.  This error is not a standard_error, but
>>> an error estimate based on a custom algorithm.   Because this is not a
>>> standard_error, it would seem that using a standard_error standard_name
>>> modifier would be misleading.   Any thoughts on how to represent this
>>> product-specific error in the NetCDF file ? (The best idead I could come up
>>> with so far is to establish an ancillary data relationwhip between the wind
>>> speed/direction variables and the error variable, and use the error
>>> variable's long_name to describe the error)     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
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *******************************************************
> * 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

------------------------------------
John Graybeal
Senior Data Manager, Metadata and Semantics

T +1 (408) 675-5545
F +1 (408) 616-1626
skype: graybealski 

Marinexplore
920 Stewart Drive
Sunnyvale, CA



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

Reply via email to