Dear Roy The number_of_observations and status_flag are problematic because they may apply to several variables with different unmodified standard names and it's not desirable to duplicate the information. That leaves detection_minimum and standard_error, which are more like anomaly in principle. I am inclined to think that standard_error might be better described as a cell_method, since it's a statistical operation that refers to how the values of the cell might vary (over repeated measurements).
I agree that it would be natural to describe anomaly as a modifier if we need to make a special provision for anomalies, as David suggested. In fact this has been discussed before and it would fit the convention, I think. My view is that if there are only half-a-dozen use-cases, it's not a problem to have standard names for them including "anomaly". I think that's better because to me it seems more robust to have the information glued together in the standard name, and it avoids adding to the convention. Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from rmendelss gmail <[email protected]> ----- > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 10:38:49 -0700 > From: rmendelss gmail <[email protected]> > To: Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> > CC: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard attributes for anomaly > X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) > > Hi Jonathan: > > > > On Mar 31, 2016, at 5:28 AM, Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > (a) in practice the standard name modifiers have caused > > complications, discussed in trac tickets, which makes it a less attractive > > mechanism, and > > Before I respond further, can you give more detail on this, what are the > problems and why these problems would be relevant to anomalies. > > Thanks, > > -Roy > ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
