Hello Thomas,
Thank you very much for pointing me at the previous discussion. (And apologies
for not having done the search for myself.)
I’m not sure I understand one sentence in the proposal:
"To be valid, a vector variable shall have at least as many components
as the dimensionality of the vector.”
I do not see where the proposal defines the “dimensionality” of the vector,
aside from the number of components. Hopefully this is not the number of
coordinate dimensions, as it does not suit our current needs.
Consider (u,v) in a climate model using a lat lon grid. Here u and v are
both 3 dimensional (level, lat, lon). Yes, in theory there is a “w” component
out there somewhere, but in practice it is treated quite differently. And,
even in the document, the variables do have a time dimension that would seem to
run afoul of this constraint. And finally, consider our new situation where
the data is to be exported on cubed-sphere grid. In this case, our variables
have dims: (time, level, nf, ny, nx), where “nf” is 6 corresponding to the 6
faces of the cube. But our wind is still 2D - there is no “face” component
of the wind.
Aside from that concern, I think the proposal meets our needs.
Cheers,
- Tom
On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Thomas Lavergne
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear Thomas, and colleagues,
Thank you for bringing this topic back in the spot lights. I made an attempt to
define vectors in CF about 4 years ago. There was a lot of good discussion in
here (http://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/79) but we unfortunately never
reached a conclusion (although there was some level of consensus at the start).
I will gladely participate to this discussion.
T.
2016-10-27 21:23 GMT+02:00 Clune, Thomas L. (GSFC-6101)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>:
I could not find any discussion in the specs about how to indicate that two
variables are part of a vector pair such as (u,v). In theory one can infer
the relationship from the long-name, but it would seem to be useful to have a
more direct means to indicate this relationship.
I see at least 4 different approaches to this:
1. Each variable that is part of a vector has an attribute that names the
partner component. u:vector_partner = “v" There is also an attribute that
specifies the component index: u:vector_index=1 Others may want vectors
with more components, in which case naming the partners becomes more
problematic. And then one would also want an attribute that specifies the
total number of components u:vector_length=2
2. Each vector component has an attribute that names the entire vector
rather than the partner. u:vector_name=“u-v”. There would also be an
attribute for specifying the vector component index as in (1) above. This
approach is more scalable for longer vectors, but tools would need to search
through all variables to find the partner components.
3. Have a separate variable which is a vector of strings. Each string names
the list of component variables with some standard separator. E.g., “u,v”,
“mx, my”, …
4. Combine components into one variable with an extra vector index
dimension. But this seems to be contrary to CF conventions for naming
variables. It is also not very friendly to the tools that we are currently
using.
Thanks in advance,
- Tom
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
==========================================
Thomas Lavergne
Norwegian Meteorological Institute
P.O.BOX 43, Blindern, NO-0313 OSLO, Norway
Phone: (+47) 22963364<callto:+47%29%2022963364> Skype:
thomas.lavergne<callto:+47%29%2022963380>
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
OSISAF HL Portal: http://osisaf.met.no<http://osisaf.met.no/>
==========================================
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
