Hi John, The examples provided in the CF Document are almost all about instrument state: http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-conventions/cf-conventions-1.7/cf-conventions.html#flags so it seems to support your use case.
-Barna On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:40 AM John Graybeal <[email protected]> wrote: > I support the point about defining 'status' and 'quality'. Yes, there are > cases when we define terms that are re-used, but I don't think these terms > are reused, they appear only in these flags. Just defining the standard > name should do. > > Ken, I did like the qualifying text about status_flag but maybe that's > because I always thought status_flag could be used that way, as a status of > instruments. Looking at the definition ( > http://mmisw.org/cfsn/#/search/status) it doesn't say that, does it? > It's all about the data. I even searched the archives, I was so sure people > talked about it in another way, but I can't find any evidence of that. > > So I conclude equipment status is not included in the model currently > supported by status flag, and we shouldn't try to fix that here. What do > you think? > > John > > On Jul 24, 2019, at 10:34 AM, Kehoe, Kenneth E. <[email protected]> wrote: > > Daniel, > > Thanks for the information. At some point we should chat about how our two > organizations think about and perform quality analysis. > > Martin, > > I'm confused about your suggestion to include definitions of status and > quality. I guess we could define those terms better in the general standard > name table, but that is not my intention. My concern is that the definition > of those terms is larger than the scope of what I wanted to propose. I > would prefer to just work on the definitions of the status_flag and > quality_flag. > > Looking at your suggestion to numerically order the values suggests I > think we have a different notion of how to use quality_flag. A quality_flag > is not intend to indicate severity or ranking of tests. It is just a state > field. My program had discussions to do something like that in the past and > it did not end well. > > If we want to add terminology along the lines of "The variable with > standard name quality_flag refers to an assessed quality of the > corresponding data." that is OK with me. Your expanded definition of status > does not help me to better understand status. I think it's the statement of > "may" that confuses me. I see a definition needing to be more definitive. > > I don't see the addition of quality_flag as changing status_flag. I see > quality_flag as a more narrow sub-class of status_flag. I would prefer to > not change much with status_flag since it has such a long history with CF. > > I think we have these definitions: > > status_flag: A variable with the standard name of status_flag contains an > indication of quality or other status of another data variable. The linkage > between the data variable and the variable with the standard name of > status_flag is achieved using the ancillary_variables attribute. A variable > which contains purely quality information may use the standard name of > quality_flag to provided an assessed quality of the corresponding data. > > quality_flag = A variable with the standard name of quality_flag contains > an indication of assessed quality information of another data variable. The > linkage between the data variable and the variable or variables with the > standard_name of quality_flag is achieved using the ancillary_variables > attribute. > > Thanks, > > Ken > > > > > > On 2019-7-24 03:40, Daniel Neumann wrote: > > Dear Ken, Martin, John, Roy and Barna, > > I/we thought about submitting a similar proposal to add some extended > model quality information to netCDF files. The suggested description of > "quality_flag" and the modified description of "status_flag" fit well into > our project. > > I am just writing this to show that there are more people in the community > who are interested in this. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > Am 24.07.2019 um 10:49 schrieb Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC: > > Dear John, Roy, > > > OK, I'm happy to drop the line about ordering of quality flags if it > doesn't work. This is consistent with Roy's suggested definitions (posted 2 > minutes before John's reply), which also drop this sentence, and add a > broader description of valid usage of the status flag (I've copied them her > to get the discussion back in a single thread): > > > Status: The value of a variable with standard name status_flag may refer > to the status of the instrument or process which generated the > corresponding data, or it may refer to the data itself. This may include > information about data quality, particularly in legacy data sets. > 'quality_flag' should be used if data quality is the only type of > information contained in the variable. > > Quality: The value of a variable with standard name quality_flag refers to > an assessed quality of the corresponding data. > > > regards, > > Martin > > ________________________________ > From: John Graybeal <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > Sent: 24 July 2019 09:20 > To: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,RALSP) > Cc: Andrew Barna; Kehoe, Kenneth E.; CF Metadata List > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard_name of quality_flag for > corresponding quality control variables > > +1 Martin, just what I was thinking also, it creates the opening but does > not preclude mixing status and quality flags in a single status_flag, which > I think is important. > > Um, I don't think you can dictate that "Numeric values of the quality flag > should be ordered, such the lowest value corresponds to the poorest quality > and the highest value to the best quality." Some people will be documenting > their own flags which are whatever they are. > > Responding to an earlier possible misconception, I want to emphasize > (read: confirm) these are the standard names, which are used to > characterize the attributes. They are not the variable names, so you can > have multiple different variables that express different status_flags or > different quality_flags. > > John > > On Jul 24, 2019, at 12:46 AM, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> wrote: > > Dear Ken, Barna, > > > I agree that we should keep things simple as far as possible, but I still > think we need to say something about the difference between "status" and > "quality". The proposed definitions do not, as far as I can see, say > anything about this. This could lead to confusion, as different data > providers may make different choices, so that user software has to check > both flags and be prepared for arbitrary usage patterns. > > > Here is an attempt at a simple definitions of the two words, which could > be appended to your proposed definitions (significant words used in the > standard name table have canned definitions which are added to the > definitions of all standard names using those words). > > > status: The value of a variable with standard name status_flag may refer > to the status of the instrument or process which generated the > corresponding data, or it may refer to the data itself. If the data > variable also has a quality_flag, the status_flag should be restricted to > properties of the instrument or process. > > > quality: The value of a variable with standard name quality_flag refers to > an assessed quality of the corresponding data. Numeric values of the > quality flag should be ordered, such the lowest value corresponds to the > poorest quality and the highest value to the best quality. > > > I've suggested "assessed" rather than "subjective", because quality could > be estimated using an algorithm which some would call objective. I've also > added in the idea that "quality" should in some sense be a scale from > poorest to best: this is the case for the examples we have discussed, and I > think it makes a clear distinction between the two flags. Are there any > potential uses of the quality flag which are not consistent with the idea > of a quality scale? > > > Specifying that the "status_flag" has a more restricted usage when the > "quality_flag" is present may be a way of getting around compatibility > issues, allowing people to continue mixed usage of "status_flag". The CF > Convention is supposed to apply with the latest standard name table, so > people don't have the option of referring to an earlier version of the > table, even if they specify an earlier version of the Convention. > > > regards, > > Martin > > ________________________________ > From: CF-metadata <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> on behalf of Andrew Barna < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>> > Sent: 23 July 2019 22:56:19 > To: Kehoe, Kenneth E. > Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard_name of quality_flag for > corresponding quality control variables > > Looks good to me. > > I took the "subjective" part from how Martin was asking about quality vs > status. > > -Barna > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 2:40 PM Kehoe, Kenneth E. <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> wrote: > Barna, > > OK your definition is fine. I suggest one small change, drop the word > subjective. > > status_flag: A variable with the standard name of status_flag contains an > indication of quality or other status of another data variable. The linkage > between the data variable and the variable with the standard_name of > status_flag is achieved using the ancillary_variables attribute. A variable > which contains purely quality information may use the standard_name of > quality_flag. > > Ken > > > On 2019-7-23 15:28, Andrew Barna wrote: > Ken, > > I think I'm confused by the text of the proposed change to the definition > of status_flag. > > In your proposed change the "quality" wording of the status_flag > definition was dropped. Here is the first sentence of each: > Current: A variable with the standard name of status_flag contains an > indication of quality or other status of another data variable. > Proposed: A variable with the standard name of status_flag contains an > indication of status of another data variable. > > Perhaps the following for "status_flag": > A variable with the standard name of status_flag contains an indication of > quality or other status of another data variable. The linkage between the > data variable and the variable with the standard_name of status_flag is > achieved using the ancillary_variables attribute. A variable which contains > purely subjective quality information may use the standard_name of > quality_flag. > > That is, keep the current definition, but also inform of a more > restrictive option. I don't see any way around not reading the > flag_meanings with any of these options. > > -Barna > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 1:03 PM Kehoe, Kenneth E. <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> wrote: > Barna, > > I see this as an optional addition to narrow the standard. It does not > prohibit someone from using status_flag (as a standard_name or a > standard_name modifier) from a previous convention version > implementation nor invalidate that use from a previous convention > version. In your example the use of status_flag is a mixture of state > and quality. I see this new name as a way to improve things going > forward. Since the historical WOCE example uses state and quality with > some additional rules not listed in the CF standard it would be up to > the user to understand how to use the variable. Without seeing the WOCE > data I can't make a specific suggestion. > > I don't know about any rules regarding a restriction. I think the > general concept of CF is to set the minimum rules. Additional rules > applied by another group on top of CF is allowed. For example my > organization uses additional attributes not defined in CF. I see > quality_flag as a narrowing of the rules of status_flag not replace it. > status_flag can still have a mixture of state and quality if the data > provider prefers to do it that way. quality_flag can only have quality > information. The determination of what is quality information is > actually up to the data provider to decide. > > Ken > > > > On 2019-7-23 13:33, Andrew Barna wrote: > Ken, > > Ok I see how this can be useful. Two more questions: > * How would you deal with "legacy" flag schemes which mix "status" and > "quality" already? I'm thinking of WOCE CTD as an example where "7" > means Despiked (a status) and "3" means Questionable measurement (a > quality). The way my seagoing group have dealt with both is by having > the "quality" override "status" if the quality is anything other than > "good", e.g. a questionable measurement which has been despiked gets > flag 3. > > * Are there rules in CF regarding restricting an existing definition? > I imagine there are many datasets already using the "status_flag" name > as either a stand alone standard name or a standard name modifier. > This change seems to be "breaking" in that previously compliant > datasets would now have quality information in a purely status field. > > Thanks > -Barna > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:08 AM Kehoe, Kenneth E. <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> wrote: > Martin, > > Thanks for your reply. I would prefer to keep the proposal simple. My > example of a weighted mean was just one I created off the top of my head. I > don't see it as something to actually look into implementing. > > I need a way to indicate a variable is a quality status field. The > distinction that the status field only contains quality information is the > important distinction. The variable indicated with quality_flag will need > to also use flag_meanings, same as status_flag. Hence my reason for > choosing quality_flag to follow a similar naming pattern. > > Barna, > > Without a distinction that the entire variable is a quality variable the > user is forced to parse the flag_meanings to see if the variable applies. > This would also encourage a data provider to mix quality with source or > instrument state or something else in the same variable. That would be very > difficult to understand. > > As Martin points out quality is more subjective than other status > information. A user may need to choose what parts of the quality variable > to apply. I would prefer we not conflate absolute information with > subjective information. But we need a way to distinguish the variable > contains absolute information vs a variable that contains more subjective > information. > > To expand on Martin's example imagine a profiling instrument that has a > shutter to protect the laser from rain. The laser will always send out > pulses and the receiver will always be on receiving the return from laser > pulse. To know when the shutter is in the open state where the instrument > is profiling we would use a state variable with a simple flag_values > method. > > short shutter (time) > shutter:long_name = "Shutter state" > shutter:units = '1' > shutter:flag_values = 0, 1 > shutter:flag_meanings = "closed open" > shutter:standard_name = "status_flag" > > This variable is just indicating the position of the shutter. There is no > ambiguity with it's use. If a user wants to use the data for atmospheric > reasons they should filter to only use data where profiling. In fact we can > implement this variable into our code by only using data where shutter is > set to open. > > Here is an example of more subjective quality variable. > > short quality_variable (time) > quality_variable:long_name = "Quality variable for linked data > variable" > quality_variable:units = '1' > quality_variable:flag_masks= 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 > quality_variable:flag_meanings = "Shutter_not_open > Laser_below_80_percent_power > Laser_below_60_percent_power > Laser_below_40_percent_power > Bird_poop_may_be_on_sensor > Bird_poop_is_on_sensor" > quality_variable:flag_meanings = "Bad Suspect Suspect Bad Suspect Bad" > quality_variable:standard_name = "quality_flag" > > In this example there are three indications when the laser is less than > 100%. It would be up to the user to decide what percentage is the limit > where they do not want to use the data. This is more subjective and > dependent on the research techniques to determine if the issue a problem or > not. It is also up to the user to determine if the chance of bird poop on > the sensor is an issue or if they are OK with the risk of using the data. > And to be nice to the user we have also pulled in information from the > shutter variable so the user can decided to only use the quality_variable > instead of using both shutter and quality_variable. This is up to the data > provider to decide. Some providers see the state of the shutter as quality > information, some would not. There is no requirements put on the quality > variable as to how it is used. It is just a quality information variable > following the same rules as a CF state variable. > > I have also included an attribute that I am not currently proposing called > flag_assessment. This is a subjective statement from the data provider on > their opinion of the quality of the data. A user can search for the word > "Bad" and then exclude only that data from analysis where the mask is set. > This would take all the guess work of quality away from the user if they > decided to take the opinion of the data provider. I'm not currently > proposing the addition of flag_meanings, this is just an example of how > quality can be expanded to be more simple for a user but not take away the > user's ability to make their own decision. Everyone has strong opinions on > quality of data. > > Thanks, > > Ken > > On 2019-7-23 06:50, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > > thanks for your response to me below. > > > Would it be fair to suggest that "status" should, as far as possible, > reflect a generic objective classification, with terms such as > "sensor_nonfunctional" which have a comparable meaning for all datasets, > while "quality" is a subjective *measure* with a meaning that may from > dataset to dataset? E.g. if dataset A has a maximum "quality" of 11 and > dataset B only goes up to 10, it doesn't necessarily imply that dataset A > is in any sense better and B. > > > If you want to use it in weighted means, perhaps it should be > "quality_measure" rather than "quality_flag"? With "status_flag" the order > of integer values does not have any meaning, but with quality perhaps it > would make more sense have some concept of a sequence of quality settings > (so that, for example "1" always indicates a quality between "0" and "2" > within a dataset, but could have different meanings in different datasets). > Could the quality also be expressed as a floating point number without any > flag meanings? > > > Responding to a point Barna raised: it is certainly possible to have more > than one "status_flag" variable, but I don't think it is ideal: if > information needs to be split across multiple variables we generally like > to describe the difference between the variables in the standard name or in > other metadata. In this case, I think there is a good case for using a new > standard name. > > > regards, > > Martin > > > > > ________________________________ > From: CF-metadata <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> on behalf of Andrew Barna < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>> > Sent: 23 July 2019 00:23 > To: Kehoe, Kenneth E. > Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard_name of quality_flag for > corresponding quality control variables > > Ken, > > I guess, I don't see this proposed change as necessary since the > distinction between the terms "quality" and "status" is really done in > the "flag_meanings" attribute and is basically free form/uncontrolled. > These attributes need to be used by this new name as well. > > Let me rephrase my suggestion/question: > If this proposal is not adopted, but an example of how to use a > variable, with the standard name of "status_flag", to only indicate > data quality is included in the document, would that help? > > -Barna > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:22 PM Kehoe, Kenneth E. <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> wrote: > > Barna, > > Yes an update to the CF document should follow after the new > standard_name is implemented. I think multiple examples are needed since > status_flag covers many different types of state variables. > > Ken > > > > On 2019-7-22 10:35, Andrew Barna wrote: > > Hi Martin, Ken, > > Is there anything wrong with including multiple "status_flag" > variables to capture all separate state you wish? The CF document > unfortunately only includes an example of how to encode the status of > a sensor, but the actual meanings of the flag values are entirely up > to you, and this will not change with this proposal. Perhaps the CF > document would benefit from additional examples (e.g. one that only > shows data quality flags). > > -Barna > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:04 AM Kehoe, Kenneth E. <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > I see status encompassing multiple metadata pieces of information. For > example it could be a state of the instrument as it cycles through a > pre-programed routine (Look at calibration target, look at sky, look at > ground, look at second calibration target, repeat...). Or the sources of > the inputs for a model where the availability or some other reason could > require making a decision on what source(s) to use. For provenance this > source information is important to report on a time step basis. Or the > status could be a data providers method to provide uncertainty > information (I see this as incorrect but some people do see it this > way). Each of these are important metadata but the method of use is > different than a strictly quality variable. A quality variable provides > information indicating if the data should be used or possibly could be > used in a weighted mean method to favor high quality data over low > quality data. The way the metadata is used is different depending on the > metadata type. A state of the instrument would be used for sub-setting > calibration vs. data. There is no ambiguity in this as data from a > calibration target is not used in a weather research analysis. But > quality is more subjective and is decided by the data user. If the > quality variable has 20 different quality tests the user would need to > decided if all 20 test results should be used or only a subset. Also, > the code for applying the quality is different than the state of the > instrument view (in my example above). > > It is possible to have a quality test result from the state of the > instrument, but not the other way around (typically). So I need a way to > distinguish the two for automated or semi-automated tools. Hence my > point of quality_flag essentially being a subset of status_flag > > Ken > > > > On 2019-7-22 02:57, Martin Juckes - UKRI STFC wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > > Can you expand on the distinction between "quality" and "status"? I > understand that they are different in principle, but, in order to support > this new standard name I think we need a clear objective statement of how > we would want to distinguish between them in CF. > > The conventions section on flags (3.5) mixes the two up ( > http://cfconventions.org/cf-conventions/cf-conventions.html#flags > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cfconventions.org_cf-2Dconventions_cf-2Dconventions.html-23flags&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=NVXr_3U_yIRDQSgpD1aJpW7HG3d4-OGt43w08zZQBk8&e=> > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cfconventions.org_cf-2Dconventions_cf-2Dconventions.html-23flags&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=NVXr_3U_yIRDQSgpD1aJpW7HG3d4-OGt43w08zZQBk8&e=> > ), so some re-wording of the document would also be needed, > > regards, > Martin > > ________________________________ > From: CF-metadata <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> on behalf of Kehoe, Kenneth E. < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> > Sent: 19 July 2019 06:42 > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard_name of quality_flag for corresponding > quality control variables > > Dear CF, > > I am proposing a new standard name of "quality_flag" to indicate a > variable is purely a quality control variable. A quality control variable > would use flag_values or flag_masks along with flag_meanings to allow > declaring levels of quality or results from quality indicating tests of the > data variable. This variable be a subset of the more general "status_flag" > standard name. Currently the definition of "status_flag" is: > > - A variable with the standard name of status_flag contains an indication > of quality or other status of another data variable. The linkage between > the data variable and the variable with the standard_name of status_flag is > achieved using the ancillary_variables attribute. > > This definition includes a variable used to define the state or other > status information of a variable and can not be distinguished by standard > name alone from a state of the instrument, processing decision, source > information, needed metadata about the data variable or other ancillary > variable type. Since there is no other way to define a purely quality > control variable, the use of "status_flag" is too general for strictly > quality control variables. By having a method to define a variable as > strictly quality control the results of quality control tests can be > applied to the data with a software tool based on requests by the user. > This would not affect current datasets that do use "status_flag" nor > require a change to the definition outside of the indication that > "quality_flag" standard name is available and a better use for pure quality > control variables. > > Proposed addition: > > quality_flag = A variable with the standard name of quality_flag contains > an indication of quality information of another data variable. The linkage > between the data variable and the variable or variables with the > standard_name of quality_flag is achieved using the ancillary_variables > attribute. > > Proposed change: > > status_flag = A variable with the standard name of status_flag contains an > indication of status of another data variable. The linkage between the data > variable and the variable with the standard_name of status_flag is achieved > using the ancillary_variables attribute. For data quality information use > quality_flag. > > Thanks, > > Ken > > > > -- > Kenneth E. Kehoe > Research Associate - University of Oklahoma > Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies > ARM Climate Research Facility - Data Quality Office > e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>> | Office: > 303-497-4754 > > -- > Kenneth E. Kehoe > Research Associate - University of Oklahoma > Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies > ARM Climate Research Facility - Data Quality Office > e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> | Office: 303-497-4754 > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.cgd.ucar.edu_mailman_listinfo_cf-2Dmetadata&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=faPyR9aIDWaBnEUvf-Fr_KcFOMNmAbPj4Yt-T5zAkmE&e=> > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.cgd.ucar.edu_mailman_listinfo_cf-2Dmetadata&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=faPyR9aIDWaBnEUvf-Fr_KcFOMNmAbPj4Yt-T5zAkmE&e=> > > -- > Kenneth E. Kehoe > Research Associate - University of Oklahoma > Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies > ARM Climate Research Facility - Data Quality Office > e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> | Office: > 303-497-4754 > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.cgd.ucar.edu_mailman_listinfo_cf-2Dmetadata&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=faPyR9aIDWaBnEUvf-Fr_KcFOMNmAbPj4Yt-T5zAkmE&e=> > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.cgd.ucar.edu_mailman_listinfo_cf-2Dmetadata&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=faPyR9aIDWaBnEUvf-Fr_KcFOMNmAbPj4Yt-T5zAkmE&e=> > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.cgd.ucar.edu_mailman_listinfo_cf-2Dmetadata&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=faPyR9aIDWaBnEUvf-Fr_KcFOMNmAbPj4Yt-T5zAkmE&e=> > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.cgd.ucar.edu_mailman_listinfo_cf-2Dmetadata&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=faPyR9aIDWaBnEUvf-Fr_KcFOMNmAbPj4Yt-T5zAkmE&e=> > > > -- > Kenneth E. Kehoe > Research Associate - University of Oklahoma > Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies > ARM Climate Research Facility - Data Quality Office > e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> | Office: > 303-497-4754 > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.cgd.ucar.edu_mailman_listinfo_cf-2Dmetadata&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=faPyR9aIDWaBnEUvf-Fr_KcFOMNmAbPj4Yt-T5zAkmE&e=> > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.cgd.ucar.edu_mailman_listinfo_cf-2Dmetadata&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=faPyR9aIDWaBnEUvf-Fr_KcFOMNmAbPj4Yt-T5zAkmE&e=> > > -- > Kenneth E. Kehoe > Research Associate - University of Oklahoma > Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies > ARM Climate Research Facility - Data Quality Office > e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> | Office: 303-497-4754 > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.cgd.ucar.edu_mailman_listinfo_cf-2Dmetadata&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=faPyR9aIDWaBnEUvf-Fr_KcFOMNmAbPj4Yt-T5zAkmE&e=> > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.cgd.ucar.edu_mailman_listinfo_cf-2Dmetadata&d=DwMFaQ&c=qKdtBuuu6dQK9MsRUVJ2DPXW6oayO8fu4TfEHS8sGNk&r=Vm7o2ZGxPkkqRuPs8nVMVQ&m=f8kQJDfPUHt7Yr0QWW9IT5PssWjH9plqdlgx0zbzbmU&s=faPyR9aIDWaBnEUvf-Fr_KcFOMNmAbPj4Yt-T5zAkmE&e=> > > > -- > Kenneth E. Kehoe > Research Associate - University of Oklahoma > Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies > ARM Climate Research Facility - Data Quality Office > e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> | Office: > 303-497-4754 > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[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 > > ======================== > John Graybeal > Technical Program Manager > Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal > Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research > 650-736-1632 > > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing > [email protected]http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > -- > Kenneth E. Kehoe > Research Associate - University of Oklahoma > Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies > ARM Climate Research Facility - Data Quality Office > e-mail: [email protected] | Office: 303-497-4754 > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > ======================== > John Graybeal > Technical Program Manager > Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal > Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research > 650-736-1632 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
