Jonathan,On second though it is all thoroughly ambiguous, whether CF names its axis standard_names for the collective or for the individual member. "ensemble" seems immediately clear and short, compared to "ensemble_member", which seems a bit labored. But I understand your concern over consistency with "realization". Either choice is fine with me.
- Steve
============================================
On 11/15/2013 11:15 AM, Steve Hankin wrote:
On 11/15/2013 10:30 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:Dear Steve et al.It'd be fine to have an standard_name alias, I agree, but I think it should be "ensemble_member", not "ensemble". The ensemble is the collection of membersI support the idea that the term "ensemble" be allowed (by whatever machinery) as an alias for "realization".(aka realizations).It feels a bit backwards, doesn't it? By this logic shouldn't the standard_name "time" be "snapshot" instead -- named for its individual members, rather than for its collective?"time" "depth", "longitude" and "latitude" axes all represent the collection of many individual points. By analogy an "ensemble" axis would be the collective of many individual members. It's true that, the choice of "realization" as a standard_name took the opposite outlook. hmmm ... Are we better off to maintain consistency with CF's well known geo-spatial axis standard_names? or consistency with "realization"?- SteveThat would require a change to the convention to be proposed on a trac ticketaxis="E" also seems like an appropriate step to maintain consistency with other well known axis types, given the high likelihood that ensemble axes will become commonplace in the future.by someone. Best wishes Jonathan
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
