Hi Jonathon, Thank you, will do that!
-Ajay On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:30 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send CF-metadata mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of CF-metadata digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: How to describe nr. of samples & absolute/relative > uncertainty (Erik Quaeghebeur) > 2. Re: Clarifying standard names for > 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles' (Daniel Neumann) > 3. CF Checker for CF-1.7 compliance pre-release (Rosalyn Hatcher) > 4. Climatological bounds for oxygen and other ocean nutrients > (Jonathan Gregory) > 5. Clarifying standard names for > 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles' (Jonathan Gregory) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:37:51 +0100 > From: Erik Quaeghebeur <[email protected]> > To: Antonio S. Cofi?o <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] How to describe nr. of samples & > absolute/relative uncertainty > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Dear Antonio, > > > Thank you for your reaction. > > > Please take a look at this thread in the mail list: > > > > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2018/059879.html > > > > The netcdf-U and uncertML could help you to encode the metadata > > you are interested in. > > I have looked at these proposals. The NetCDF-U one is quite involved. The > more limited proposal by Ken Kehoe is closer to what I think I need. > Essentially, if it would also allow for attributes to contain what now must > be placed in scalar uncertainty variables, it would be what I need. (I've > added some comments to the document.) > > > Please come back with any progress you made. > > For now, I'm using ?uncertainty_abs? and ?uncertainty_rel? with explanation > in the file's comment attribute. > > > Best, > > Erik > > -- > https://ac.erikquaeghebeur.name > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 10:05:23 +0100 > From: Daniel Neumann <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for > 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles' > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Dear Jonathan, > > Thank you for your feedback. I hope some experts on atmospheric > chemistry will also comment on the proposal. > > I just realized that I missed standard names starting with > "atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to". These are 13 additional standard > names. But no additional special cases arise. > > >> In the case of "atmosphere_mass_content_of_..." I added "_in_air" in > >> the end, which was not there before. > > Actually I don't think we should do this, because atmosphere_ and > _in_air are > > alternatives in standard names, similarly ocean_ and _in_sea_water. The > former > > denotes a property of the entire medium, the latter of the local fluid. > OK. Sounds reasonable. > > >> (a) ..._dry_particulate_particulate_organic_matter... > >> Thus, we had "particulate" twice. We could also call it > >> (a) ..._dry_particulate_organic_matter... > >> > >> which would be less confusing to read. But it would break the rule. > > I'm in favour of removing the duplication; particulate_particulate would > look > > like a mistake and cause confusion. > OK. > > >> the renaming convention in the beginning yields a name structure like > >> "SIZE-CLASS_WHAT" with "SIZE-CLASS" in "particulate", "pm10", > >> "pm2p5", ... and with "WHAT" in "nitrate", "ammonium", ... . In this > >> situation, we don't have a "WHAT" because we mean "all compounds" or > >> "total". Should we leave it like that or should we insert something > >> for "WHAT"? > > Do you mean e.g. mass_concentration_of_ambient_pm10_in_air? I think that > > is fine. I understand pm10 to mean pm10 particles of any species. > Yes, standard names of this type. > > >> that "dry pm10" + "water in pm10" = "ambient pm10". This would be > >> a consistent formulation. > >> But it is not intuitive ... . > > Do you mean e.g. > > mass_fraction_of_ambient_pm10_in_air > > mass_fraction_of_dry_pm10_in_air > > mass_fraction_of_water_in_pm10_in_air > > I'm not sure that I understand, but I don't think ambient = dry + water > > in this case, because the last one appears to mean the mass fraction of > > the ambient aerosol which is water. I have a vague recollection of > discussing > > before what this was intended to mean. Do you want to describe the mass > > fraction of the air which is the water of the ambient aerosol? > Ah! I interpreted > "mass_fraction_of_water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles_in_air" wrongly. I > interpreted it as fraction of "water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles" in > "air". But actually, it means fraction of "water" in > "ambient_aerosol_particles_in_air"? > >> THE END > > Good night and sleep well. > Thanks :-) > > Best, > Daniel > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:14:44 +0000 > From: Rosalyn Hatcher <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [CF-metadata] CF Checker for CF-1.7 compliance pre-release > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Hi all, > > I have now made a preliminary release of the CF Checker for CF-1.7. > > Whilst I have run it on a good number of netCDF files it would be much > appreciated if the community could give it some testing and feedback any > problems over the next week or so as I plan to release formally after > Easter. > > The web version is available here: > http://pumatest.nerc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/cf-checker-dev.pl > > If you wish to download and install it locally a tarball is available on > github: https://github.com/cedadev/cf-checker/releases > > As well as additional checks for CF-1.7 compliance, the other noteable > change is the ability to cache the standard name, region and area types > tables for a specified period of time speeding up the execution time > considerably. Thanks to Martin Juckes for contribution.? Full details of > the changes can be found in the release notes on github. > > Thank you. > Regards, > Ros > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:14:22 +0000 > From: Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [CF-metadata] Climatological bounds for oxygen and other > ocean nutrients > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Dear Ajay > > You could record this informally in the cell_methods e.g. > time: mean (few observations before the mid-20th century)" > > Cheers > > Jonathan > > ----- Forwarded message from Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate < > [email protected]> ----- > > > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:53:23 -0400 > > From: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [CF-metadata] Climatological bounds for oxygen and other ocean > > nutrients > > > > Hello CF Folks, > > > > What is the CF guidance for climatological bounds when the statistics > being > > generated are from data that are not uniformly spaced? > > > > We're developing a climatology for nutrients such as dissolved oxygen, > > nitrate, phosphate and silicate. > > These make use of sparse observations from as early as the late 1800s. Up > > until the mid 1900s the number of observations have been few and spaced > > out. Since then there has been a big spike in the number of nutrient > > observations. > > > > Since old observations are important, we would like to use them in > > generating stats and deriving climatologies. > > At the same time having climatological bounds beginning at 1875-01-01, > > gives a false sense of the scope/ temporal extent of the climatology. Is > > there a way to capture this information in either the bounds/ stats > > variable? > > > > Thank you!! > > > > -Ajay > > -- > > > > *Ajay Krishnan* > > Geospatial Data Developer | Science & Technology Corporation > > <http://stcnet.com/> - Federal Government Contractor > > NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) > > SSMC3 - 1315 East West Hwy Silver Spring MD 20910 > > <https://goo.gl/maps/ovow9dP4nhE2> > > [email protected] > > Phone: 301-713-4864 <(301)%20713-4864> > > Customer Support: 1-301-713-3277 or [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > > CF-metadata mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:31:16 +0000 > From: Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for > 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles' > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Dear Daniel > > > >Do you mean e.g. > > >mass_fraction_of_ambient_pm10_in_air > > >mass_fraction_of_dry_pm10_in_air > > >mass_fraction_of_water_in_pm10_in_air > > >I'm not sure that I understand, but I don't think ambient = dry + water > > >in this case, because the last one appears to mean the mass fraction of > > >the ambient aerosol which is water. I have a vague recollection of > discussing > > >before what this was intended to mean. Do you want to describe the mass > > >fraction of the air which is the water of the ambient aerosol? > > Ah! I interpreted > > "mass_fraction_of_water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles_in_air" > > wrongly. I interpreted it as fraction of > > "water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles" in "air". But actually, it > > means fraction of "water" in "ambient_aerosol_particles_in_air"? > > Actually I think you were right, and I was wrong e.g. > mass_fraction_of_water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles_in_air > must be an example of the pattern > mass_fraction_of_X_in_air > so X=water_in_ambient_aerosol_particles, as you say. Therefore the sum > does > add up as you say. However the definition of this existing standard name > does > not comment on the perplexity of two "in"s. I do believe we discussed this > before, but I can't remember when. I wonder whether we could take advantage > of your proposal to change these names in order to remove the problem. What > would read most clearly? For example > mass_fraction_of_water_contained_within_pm10_in_air > "contained within" is a longer way of saying "content of", which would be > more natural, but I wouldn't suggest that because "content" is used in > another > specific sense in standard names (the amount of something per unit area). > > Best wishes > > Jonathan > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > ------------------------------ > > End of CF-metadata Digest, Vol 179, Issue 18 > ******************************************** > -- *Ajay Krishnan* Geospatial Data Developer | Science & Technology Corporation <http://stcnet.com/> - Federal Government Contractor NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) SSMC3 - 1315 East West Hwy Silver Spring MD 20910 <https://goo.gl/maps/ovow9dP4nhE2> [email protected] Phone: 301-713-4864 <(301)%20713-4864> Customer Support: 1-301-713-3277 or [email protected]
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
