Dear all,
I wonder if the following might also meet requirements of the use case:
name: *ensemble_size*
*
*
description: The number of member realizations in an ensemble. This
name provides context for any specific realization, which might not be
co-located with the other members of the ensemble.
Karl
On 7/20/15 9:49 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
