Sorry for the misleading title in my recent posting.  The correct title 
now appears here,  copied from Martin's original posting (spelling error 
and all).
best,
Karl

On 11/28/18 4:47 PM, Taylor, Karl E. wrote:
> Dear Alison and all,
>
> I support Martin's proposal
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2018/020666.html to add
>
> indian_pacific_ocean
> atlantic_arctic_ocean
>
> to the list of standard regions labels.
>
> best regards,
> Karl
>
> On 11/21/18 1:40 PM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:
>> Dear Jim,
>>
>>
>> sorry, I stand corrected. Thank you for the detailed explanation.
>>
>>
>> The conformance statements looks to be in error.
>>
>>
>> Is there a clear rule for what makes a valid set of flag_values when used in 
>> conjunction with flag_masks?
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jim Biard <[email protected]>
>> Sent: 21 November 2018 20:50
>> To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP); [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Multiple zeros in flag_values allowed?
>>
>>
>> Martin,
>>
>> The two subfields are independent. You can have very bad quality data and 
>> very bad weather at the same time. And that's how the flag masks and flag 
>> values are supposed to work. The mask splits off bit regions that are 
>> independent of one another. There is no ambiguity.
>>
>> The possible options and the values masked by the flag masks of 3 (binary 
>> 0011) and 12 (binary 1100) are:
>>
>> Weather Quality
>>           Binary Value
>>           Binary value & 3
>>           Binary value & 12
>>
>> very bad
>>           very bad
>>           0000
>>           0
>>           0
>>
>> very bad
>>           bad
>>           0001
>>           1
>>           0
>>
>> very bad
>>           good
>>           0010
>>           2
>>           0
>>
>> very bad
>>           very good
>>           0011
>>           3
>>           0
>>
>> bad     very bad        0100
>>           0
>>           4
>>
>> bad     bad     0101
>>           1
>>           4
>>
>> bad     good    0110
>>           2
>>           4
>>
>> bad     very good       0111
>>           3
>>           4
>>
>> good    very bad        1000
>>           0
>>           8
>>
>> good    bad     1001
>>           1
>>           8
>>
>> good    good    1010
>>           2
>>           8
>>
>> good
>>           very good       1011
>>           3
>>           8
>>
>> very good       very bad        1100
>>           0
>>           12
>>
>> very good       bad     1101
>>           1
>>           12
>>
>> very good       good    1110
>>           2
>>           12
>>
>> very good       very good       1111
>>           3
>>           12
>>
>>
>> Grace and peace,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On 11/21/18 12:03 PM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote:
>>
>> Hello Jim, Julien,
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure .. I think the conformance might be right here and your 
>> flag_values should be 0,1,2,3, 4, 8,12,16, and flag_masks 3,3,3,3,28,28,28,28
>>
>>
>> If, for instance, you very_bad_quality and very_bad_weather, then "var" 
>> should have value 4 = '00100000` in binary. Masked with 3 (11000000) gives 
>> zero, and masked with 28 (00111000) gives 4. Re-using the zero value would 
>> make zero ambiguous, so you need to start the 2nd sequence at 4.
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: CF-metadata 
>> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> 
>> on behalf of Jim Biard <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
>> Sent: 20 November 2018 16:51:24
>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Multiple zeros in flag_values allowed?
>>
>>
>> Julien,
>>
>> That's fine. The conformance document probably needs a better statement of 
>> the requirement when flag masks are used.
>>
>> Grace and peace,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On 11/20/18 11:40 AM, Julien Demaria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We want to define a flags variable defining like that:
>> var:flag_masks = 3, 3, 3, 3, 12, 12, 12, 12 ;
>> var:flag_values = 0, 1, 2, 3,   0,    4,  8, 12 ;
>> var:flag_meanings = “very_bad_quality       bad_quality        good_quality  
>>       very_good_quality
>>                                               very_bad_weather    
>> bad_weather    good_weather    very_good_weather” ;
>>
>> I understand from http://cfconventions.org/Conformance/conformance.html that 
>> it is not allowed to use several time the same value (here zero) in 
>> flag_values:
>>
>> Requirements:
>>
>> ·         The flag_values attribute values must be mutually exclusive among 
>> the set of flag_values attribute values defined for that variable.
>> So it means that for each new “bits combination” in the flags definition we 
>> lost one of the combination because we cannot use zero more than one time?
>> Do you confirm this? What is the reason?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Julien
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
>>
>> --
>> [CICS-NC] <http://www.cicsnc.org/><http://www.cicsnc.org/> Visit us on
>> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/cicsnc><http://www.facebook.com/cicsnc>    
>>    Jim Biard
>> Research Scholar
>> Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC 
>> <http://cicsnc.org/><http://cicsnc.org/>
>> North Carolina State University <http://ncsu.edu/><http://ncsu.edu/>
>> NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information 
>> <http://ncdc.noaa.gov/><http://ncdc.noaa.gov/>
>> formerly NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
>> 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
>> e: 
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
>> o: +1 828 271 4900
>>
>> Connect with us on Facebook for 
>> climate<https://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIclimate><https://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIclimate>
>>  and ocean and 
>> geophysics<https://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIoceangeo><https://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIoceangeo>
>>  information, and follow us on Twitter at 
>> @NOAANCEIclimate<https://twitter.com/NOAANCEIclimate><https://twitter.com/NOAANCEIclimate>
>>  and 
>> @NOAANCEIocngeo<https://twitter.com/NOAANCEIocngeo><https://twitter.com/NOAANCEIocngeo>.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [CICS-NC] <http://www.cicsnc.org/> Visit us on
>> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/cicsnc>       Jim Biard
>> Research Scholar
>> Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites NC <http://cicsnc.org/>
>> North Carolina State University <http://ncsu.edu/>
>> NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information <http://ncdc.noaa.gov/>
>> formerly NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
>> 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
>> e: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> o: +1 828 271 4900
>>
>> Connect with us on Facebook for 
>> climate<https://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIclimate> and ocean and 
>> geophysics<https://www.facebook.com/NOAANCEIoceangeo> information, and 
>> follow us on Twitter at 
>> @NOAANCEIclimate<https://twitter.com/NOAANCEIclimate> and 
>> @NOAANCEIocngeo<https://twitter.com/NOAANCEIocngeo>.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to