Dear CFers,

About a year ago I proposed three new cell-methods (mibs/mabs/mebs).
The proposal received some discussion, and what I infer from silence
as acquiescence. To those three methods I now propose adding a fourth:
tabs = total absolute value whose CF mehod would be encoded as sum_absolute_value (or, if people prefer, total_absolute_value). tabs is analogous to the existing "sum" statistic but is computed with absolute values. Its utility is in computing statistics of quantities whose magnitude not signedness is the key metric. Its omission in my original proposal was an oversight.

The full set of recommendations could be implemented in CF by
inserting the following line into Table E.1. Cell Methods

http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-conventions/cf-conventions-1.7/build/cf-conventions.html#appendix-cell-methods

cell_methods:           Units:  Description
maximum_absolute_value  u       Maximum absolute value
minimum_absolute_value  u       Minimum absolute value
mean_absolute_value     u       Mean absolute value
sum_absolute_value      u       The data values are representative of
a sum or accumulation of the absolute values over the cell.

Thoughts?

Best,
Charlie

On 2/20/15 00:55, David Hassell wrote:
Hi Charlie,

the strings "maximum_absolute_value", "minimum_absolute_value",
and "mean_absolute_value".  I suggest CF adopt this, or some
variant pursuant to discussion.

Many apologies - for some reason, I failed to register this crucial
sentence when I replied. I suppose that it's good that the same names
were arrived at without prior knowledge.

No objections from me, then.

All the best,

David

---- Original message from Charlie Zender (04PM 19 Feb 15)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 16:39:15 -0800
From: Charlie Zender <[email protected]>
To: David Hassell <[email protected]>
CC: CF Metadata Mail List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New cell_methods: mabs/mibs/mebs?
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101
  Thunderbird/31.4.0

Hello David,

I use mabs/mebs/mibs as shorthand, not as cell_methods.
I suggest, and NCO implements, cell_methods with the longer
versions that you prefer. The command line operators of NCO
accept either full or abbreviated versions (to save typing
when conducting the operation itself).

Now I see what you mean by the sentence in the appendix.
It could be read either way, and I read it the wrong way.
So I like your suggestion to clarify it.

Charlie

On 02/19/2015 04:27 PM, David Hassell wrote:
Dear Charlie,

I for one have no objection, in general, to new cell methods - I don't
think that there are enough.

Your suggestions (mabs/mibs/mebs) are clearly well defined, though I'm
personally not so keen on the use of abbreviations. I've not seen
these terms before, and wouldn't have guessed what they all mean. This
is contrary to all of the other cell methods, which are unabbreviated
and, I suspect, nearly universally understood.

I dislike typing as much as anyone, but spelling them out is only 1 to
4 characters more than typing standard_deviation, the current longest
method name:

standard_deviation
mean_absolute_value
minimum_absolute_value
maximum_absolute_value

These terms seem nicely self describing to me. Do you think this is an
option?

There appears to be an error in the draft 1.7 document. The sentence
describing Appendix E (the cell-methods appendix) says "In the Units
column, u indicates the units of the physical quantity before the
method is applied." Actually the units column entries are valid
_after_ the method is applied. Variance is the only method for which
this currently matters. This can be addressed independently of the
rest of the cell_methods suggestions proposed here.

I think that this is OK. The column contains units after the method is
applied, defined in terms of the original units ('u'). However, I
agree that the terse description can mislead (as it did me just
now!). How about replacing:

   "In the Units column, 'u' indicates the units of the physical
    quantity before the method is applied."

with something like:

   "The Units column contains the units of the physical quantity after
    the method is applied, in terms of 'u', the units before the method
    is applied."


All the best,

David


---- Original message from Charlie Zender (11AM 19 Feb 15)

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:56:22 -0800
From: Charlie Zender <[email protected]>
To: CF Metadata Mail List <[email protected]>
Subject: [CF-metadata] New cell_methods: mabs/mibs/mebs?
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0)
  Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0

Dear CF-ers,

The statistics mabs/mibs/mebs stand for "Maximum absolute value",
"Minimum absolute value", and "Mean absolute value", respectively.
They are similar to max/min/mean statistics, and they can be useful
in characterizing data when one wants positive-definite metrics.
mebs (unlike mean) does not allow positive and negative values to
compensate eachother. Unlike rms, mebs not does weight outliers
quadratically. NCO (version 4.4.8) implements mabs/mibs/mebs as
fundamental statistics (like max/min/mean/rms), and annotates the
cell_methods attribute of variables reduced by these statistics with
the strings "maximum_absolute_value", "minimum_absolute_value", and
"mean_absolute_value".  I suggest CF adopt this, or some variant
pursuant to discussion.

So I guess this is a request for discussion.
The relevant portions of CF are
http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-conventions/cf-conventions-1.7/build/cf-conventions.html#cell-methods
http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-conventions/cf-conventions-1.7/build/cf-conventions.html#appendix-cell-methods
The modifications that would be needed seem straightforward:
mention mabs/mebs/mibs in the text and then enlarge the existing
cell_methods table table by three rows.

There appears to be an error in the draft 1.7 document. The sentence
describing Appendix E (the cell-methods appendix) says "In the Units
column, u indicates the units of the physical quantity before the
method is applied." Actually the units column entries are valid
_after_ the method is applied. Variance is the only method for which
this currently matters. This can be addressed independently
of the rest of the cell_methods suggestions proposed here.

I think that this is OK. The column contains units after the method is
applied, defined in terms of the original units ('u'). However, the
terse description is misleading on first reading. How about something
like:

"In the Units column are the units of the physical quantity after the
  method is applied, in terms of 'u', the units before the method is
  applied."

Best,
Charlie
--
Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci.
University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'(
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
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: [email protected]


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


--
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: [email protected]


--
Charlie Zender, Earth System Sci. & Computer Sci.
University of California, Irvine 949-891-2429 )'(
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Reply via email to