@ngalbraith for the upcoming version of our 'IOOS Metadata Profile' that incorporates these new standard names into a quality flagging scheme for QARTOD, we decided to leverage the `references` attribute to suggest data providers link to external web pages or web-accessible files (e.g. JSON) that contain the parameters used in the tests. The documentation for this scheme can be found [here](https://ioos.github.io/ioos-metadata/ioos-metadata-profile-v1-2.html#quality-controlqartod).
Our [QC library](https://github.com/ioos/ioos_qc) is written so that [JSON or YAML files](https://ioos.github.io/ioos_qc/usage.html#qcconfig) can be passed to the test functions to define the parameters, so there is a way for a direct integration there. @jessicaaustin can correct me if I have any of this wrong. @castelao I don't have an opposition to adding additional test names to this proposal, however we do have a strong preference that these names be added to the next release of the standard names table (v71) so we can move our project along to the implementation phase - we've been waiting on resolution here. If the CF stewards are willing to accept additional tests and merge them alongside those we've proposed, then I don't see a problem. It may make sense to open a new issue with the full list of additional test names, descriptions, etc, as in the tables above and refer back to this one (via cf-convention/cf-conventions#216 link) rather than include them in the same issue. Just my 2 cents. Thanks! -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/216#issuecomment-572079472 This list forwards relevant notifications from Github. It is distinct from [email protected], although if you do nothing, a subscription to the UCAR list will result in a subscription to this list. To unsubscribe from this list only, send a message to [email protected].
