Dear Randy Yes, I would say that fire could be an area type, except that it would be nice to be more specific about it. Does it mean wildfire? Expanding the area type is not a slippery slope; the table was created in order to avoid expanding the number of standard names because of the introduction of more types, as well as so area type could be used as a dimension of data variables.
Cheers Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from Randy Horne <[email protected]> ----- > Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 13:19:05 -0400 > From: Randy Horne <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [CF-metadata] a conceptual question about "area_types" > X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508) > > Folks: > > The current area_type table includes "cloud", "snow", and "vegetation". > These are environmental conditions whose existence and location vary over > time. > > In GOES-R, we are generating rainfall, fire, aerosol (smoke and dust), and > volcanic ash product files. These product files contain statistics (e.g. > min, max, mean, std dev) that are associated with only those regions on the > earth where these environmental conditions are found. For the variables > containing these statistics, we are using cell_methods. A "where fire" > clause would make sense (if "fire" were in the area_type table). It would > seem a "where fire" clause is conceptually the same as "where cloud". > > If they are the conceptually same, there would be value to expanding the > area_type table. However, I can see a slippery slope forming as the > area_type table could grow large. > > If they are not conceptually the same, what am I missing ? > > 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
