To save others the lookup, the use case phrasing that Mark signed on to were 
these words: "In my use case, the whole ensemble is not present, I only have a 
subset of the members. I have a metadata element telling me how many members 
there were at the time the ensemble was created, which I would like to encode." 
 The entire thread is titled 'realization | x of n', but it is pretty, umm, 
rich with detail. 

The last email before discussion went silent appears to be mine:

> Modified to fit Mark's use case, I think suitable text is:
> 
> name: original_ensemble_size
> 
> description: The number of member realizations in the originally constituted 
> ensemble. This provides context for any specific realization, for example 
> orienting a member relative to its original group (even if the group is no 
> longer intact).
> 
> This does not mention forecasting, preserves the origination concept, and 
> gives a bit of context, without constraining the application. It could even 
> be an ensemble of observations, or cat videos, or ... you get the idea.

I will let someone else provide the example of how that is associated with the 
variable, it will be more authoritative!

John


On Jul 20, 2015, at 14:42, Karl Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> I didn't quite understand how the standard name gets associated with a 
> variable (containing 1 or more realizations from the ensemble).   Someone 
> said it was through a scalar coordinate variable, but I don't see how the 
> ensemble member is a function of the ensemble size, so why would this be 
> appropriate?  
> 
> Could you supply an example?
> 
> Also, I didn't follow why "original" was included in "original ensemble 
> size".  Surely, you wouldn't report this number unless you thought the 
> ensemble size was pretty much set and wouldn't change.  In that case there 
> shouldn't be a need for a "modified ensemble size", so wouldn't "ensemble 
> size" suffice?
> 
> thanks,
> Karl
> 
> 
> On 7/20/15 9:24 AM, Hedley, Mark wrote:
>> Hello CF
>> 
>> Late last year we had a discussion about storing 
>> original_ensemble_size
>> in a CF file
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2014/thread.html#57756
>> 
>> There were a few options discussed, with John Graybeal making the suggestion
>> original_ensemble_size
>> description: The number of members constituting an ensemble.
>> for a new standard_name definition, which seemed to fit the case very well
>> 
>> It does not seem to have been adopted into the standard names list as yet.
>> 
>> Please may this name and definition be adopted, or reasons not to detailed 
>> here?
>> 
>> thank you
>> mark
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

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

Reply via email to