Dear Charlie, Karl, and other CF'ers,

If you can all agree on a preferred convention for whether the first, last, 
mid, or some other date is used to label a climatology, or a way of 
unambiguously labelling which has been used, it would make lots of people 
happier.

Does anyone know of any WMO Climate Commission, or Commission for Basic 
Systems, guidance?

Best wishes, Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: CF-metadata [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: CF-metadata Digest, Vol 144, Issue 25

Send CF-metadata mailing list submissions to
        [email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
Contents of CF-metadata digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Is there ambiguity in labeling climatological time
      coordinates? (Charlie Zender)
   2. Re: Is there ambiguity in labeling climatological time
      coordinates? (Karl Taylor)
   3. Ancillary variables in coordinate variables (latitude,
      longitude, ...) (Kristian Sebasti?n)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:11:07 -0700
From: Charlie Zender <[email protected]>
To: CF Metadata Mail List <[email protected]>
Subject: [CF-metadata] Is there ambiguity in labeling climatological
        time    coordinates?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

Dear CF'ers,

The draft 1.7 conventions example Example 7.8. Climatological seasons has the 
following for the time coordinate:

time="1960-4-16", "1960-7-16", "1960-10-16", "1961-1-16" ;

All else being equal, are the values

time="1975-4-16", "1975-7-16", "1975-10-16", "1976-1-16" ;

also be acceptable for this same example?

The underlying question is whether there is permissible ambiguity in the time 
coordinate values, or if for some reason the beginning year (1960) must be used 
as in this example. An alternative choice that seems reasonable to me is the 
use of the midpoint year (1975). I'm unsure whether 1960 was chosen arbitrarily 
or because one is expected to apply the minimum operation discussed in this 
example (seasonal minimum temperature) to the values of the time coordinate as 
well.

Thanks,
Charlie
--
Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci.
University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'(


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:22:45 -0700
From: Karl Taylor <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Is there ambiguity in labeling
        climatological time coordinates?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"

Hi Charlie,

I think the only guidance CF provides is:

"The time coordinates should be values that are representative of the 
climatological time intervals, such that an application which does not 
recognise climatological time will nonetheless be able to make a 
reasonable interpretation"

I think for your case any consecutive dates within the climatological 
period would do, but like you I'd probably choose the middle year (or 
perhaps the first year, as in the example).

Hope others will correct me if I'm wrong.

Karl

On 4/29/15 5:11 PM, Charlie Zender wrote:
> Dear CF'ers,
>
> The draft 1.7 conventions example Example 7.8. Climatological seasons
> has the following for the time coordinate:
>
> time="1960-4-16", "1960-7-16", "1960-10-16", "1961-1-16" ;
>
> All else being equal, are the values
>
> time="1975-4-16", "1975-7-16", "1975-10-16", "1976-1-16" ;
>
> also be acceptable for this same example?
>
> The underlying question is whether there is permissible ambiguity
> in the time coordinate values, or if for some reason the
> beginning year (1960) must be used as in this example. An alternative
> choice that seems reasonable to me is the use of the midpoint year
> (1975). I'm unsure whether 1960 was chosen arbitrarily or because one
> is expected to apply the minimum operation discussed in this example
> (seasonal minimum temperature) to the values of the time coordinate
> as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Charlie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150429/9e5b7217/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:43:54 +0200
From: Kristian Sebasti?n <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [CF-metadata] Ancillary variables in coordinate variables
        (latitude, longitude, ...)
Message-ID:
        <CAGfa=MDW7dpnpZj=eojggrk2eq9o1nvtz_dcux-eemh4myb...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear CF community,

We have some dataset with quality controls applied to the coordinate
variables, such as latitude and longitude coordinate. The result are
quality control variables that we associate as ancillary variables of the
coordinate variables with the ancillary_variables attribute. For example,
the LAT coordinate variable has the ancillary variable QC_LAT. The dataset
http://thredds.socib.es/thredds/dodsC/drifter/surface_drifter/drifter_svp052-ime_svp017/L1/2014/dep0001_drifter-svp052_ime-svp017_L1_2014-05-25.nc

The cf-conventions clarifies the use of the ancillary_variables attribute
for data variables but not for coordinate variables. My question is, Is the
ancillary_variables attribute in coordinates variables compliant with the
cf-conventions?

Best regards,

Kristian

-- 

Kristian Sebastian Blalid
SOS Division: Data Center Technical
Tel: 971439860 - Fax: 971439979
E-mail: [email protected]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150430/6ad36aa3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: LogoSocibPosit_150x62_fondoClaro.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9452 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150430/6ad36aa3/attachment.png>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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


------------------------------

End of CF-metadata Digest, Vol 144, Issue 25
********************************************
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Reply via email to