This message came from the CF Trac system.  Do not reply.  Instead, enter your 
comments in the CF Trac system at https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/.

#74: Allow sharing of ancillary variables among multiple data variables
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email protected]  |       Owner:  
[email protected]             
      Type:  enhancement               |      Status:  new                      
                 
  Priority:  medium                    |   Milestone:                           
                 
 Component:  cf-conventions            |     Version:                           
                 
Resolution:                            |    Keywords:  "ancillary data" 
"standard name modifiers"
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Comment (by ngalbraith):

 Replying to [comment:41 jonathan]:
  As much as I'd like to be able to get rid of standard name modifiers, I
 think they're far more clear than cell methods for concepts like
 standard_error and detection_minimum. When the quantity in the data
 variable is not representative of the concept expressed by the standard
 name, you're likely to have data misinterpreted; a standard name modifier
 is much harder to miss than a cell method.

 Yes, we should all be looking at cell methods, but most of the method
 terms convey only ancillary information, at least for in situ data sets.
 The whole concept of cell methods could be improved if they were limited
 to descriptions of sampling/recording strategies, rather than including
 terms that transform the data variable from a geophysical phenomenon to a
 statistical value.

 This is probably well out of the scope of this ticket, but maybe we should
 consider moving standard_deviation and variance from cell methods to
 standard name modifiers, since data variables with these 'methods' do not
 represent the the geophysical quantity expressed by the standard names.

 Are there cases where these are used with a single axis, which would make
 that impossible? It seems more logical to me to group these with standard
 error and detection minimum than with point/max/mean/min etc.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/74#comment:44>
CF Metadata <http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/>
CF Metadata

This message came from the CF Trac system.  To unsubscribe, without 
unsubscribing to the regular cf-metadata list, send a message to 
"[email protected]" with "unsubscribe cf-metadata" in the body of your 
message.

Reply via email to