Hello, I also support the the flexibility given by the conventions.
All the best, David ---- Original message from David Charles Hassell (08AM 30 Apr 15) > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:13:42 +0000 > From: David Charles Hassell <d.c.hass...@reading.ac.uk> > To: "Little, Chris" <chris.lit...@metoffice.gov.uk>, > "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Is there ambiguity in labelling climatological > time. Was: CF-metadata Digest, Vol 144, Issue 25 > > Hello Chris, Charlie, Karl, .... > > Personally, I prefer to use the first (or last) year, as this is unambiguous. > Ambiguities about how to define the mid-year could arise depending on whether > number of years in the climatology is odd or even. The mid-year could, of > course, be carefully defined, but the definition would be arbitrary, I think. > > (I used "year" here, but the same argument applies to "day") > > All the best, > > David > ________________________________________ > From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] on behalf of Little, > Chris [chris.lit...@metoffice.gov.uk] > Sent: 30 April 2015 08:58 > To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > Subject: [CF-metadata] Is there ambiguity in labelling climatological time. > Was: CF-metadata Digest, Vol 144, Issue 25 > > 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:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of > cf-metadata-requ...@cgd.ucar.edu > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 7:44 AM > To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > Subject: CF-metadata Digest, Vol 144, Issue 25 > > Send CF-metadata mailing list submissions to > cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > > 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 > cf-metadata-requ...@cgd.ucar.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cf-metadata-ow...@cgd.ucar.edu > > 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 <zen...@uci.edu> > To: CF Metadata Mail List <cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu> > Subject: [CF-metadata] Is there ambiguity in labeling climatological > time coordinates? > Message-ID: <5541731b.50...@uci.edu> > 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 <taylo...@llnl.gov> > To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Is there ambiguity in labeling > climatological time coordinates? > Message-ID: <554183e5.1080...@llnl.gov> > 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 <ksebast...@socib.es> > To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > 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: kristian.sebast...@socib.es > -------------- 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 > CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > ------------------------------ > > End of CF-metadata Digest, Vol 144, Issue 25 > ******************************************** > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata -- David Hassell National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 243, Reading RG6 6BB, U.K. Tel : +44 118 3785613 E-mail: d.c.hass...@reading.ac.uk _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
