Karl, To my understanding (then and now), the use case is explicitly not what your definition describes. The entire point of the request was to provide a label that was clearly distinguished from the typical concept of ensemble size.
John On Jul 21, 2015, at 16:36, Karl Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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
