Dear all,
what is this thing about region_names? I only now saw this popping up and
must say that I strongly object to adopt these as a standard. Region
definitions are so manifold and depend very much on individual applications
that I don't see any value in adopting one set of names
Dear Jonathan, all,
we have had this discussion about provisional status earlier, and I
remember having received quite a bit of support for a proposal to have a
provisional status with a fixed lifetime. I still believe this would be better
than having to revert changes and create confusing
Dear Alison,
great overview! Thanks very much for this. I am happy with all of your
suggestions, so you can count my vote if needed.
Concerning the resistance terminology: This refers to a resistance model
approach for which a paper by Wesely, 1989 (Atmos. Env., 23/6) is widely
Dear Jonathan,
Deprecating the units attribute for string and char variables (perhaps
int, too?) sounds like a good idea. Yet, I would still second Marc to at least
allow for a None value in the units attribute - as far as I understand this
wouldn't break the compatibility.
But, in
Dear Mark and all,
thanks for this discussion and the motion to approach udunits to advance
this issue. Reading through the posts on this, I have two comments, one
question, and one afterthought:
1. Why no_unit and not simply none? no_unit could also be no_units (in
fact the attribute
Dear all,
I like the term number_concentration_of_molecules_in_air (m-3). Thanks,
Alison!
Best regards,
Martin
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:40:04 +
From: alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] mole_concentration_of_air_in_air?
Dear all,
sorry of this has been asked/commented before: I admit I didn't follow all
the Github posts that came in lately. Firstly, let me say that I like the
Github lookfeel - let's hope this will soon be fully functional. I just tried
to get the latest (1.6) conventions document (pdf)
Dear Mike,
what you describe sounds to me like a textbook example of what the netcdf4
groups could accomplish without any quirks. Since you do have a separate time
axis for each variable, it doesn't make much sense in my view to force them to
co-exist in one file at one level. As far as I
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:05:36 +
From: Hattersley, Richard richard.hatters...@metoffice.gov.uk
To: Gregory, Jonathan j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk,
cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow
Message-ID:
Dear Jonathan et all,
I sympathize with this change of rules. However, I would propose to
couple this to a final review alert or whatever you want to call it. A
deadline can pass unnoticed, and it would be good to either set a fixed yearly
date for accepting changes as final (the CF
Dear Brigitte and all,
please find below a few comments -- I only copied those names on which I
made a comment.
Thanks again for this effort!
Martin
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Brigitte Koffi Lefeivre [mailto:brigitte.koffi-lefei...@jrc.ec.europa.eu]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21.
Hi Charlie,
this could be a future extension. Right now, I believe that most products
will not make this distinction - hence we need names for these. A natural
extension would then be the due_to construct:
fire_area_due_to_smoldering_fires. However, these names should only be
proposed when
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:36:48 -0500
From: Gary Meehan gmee...@aer.com
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard names: fire area, fire
temperature, fire radiative power
Message-ID: 5294f850.5070...@aer.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Dear CF
Dear Petra,
we developed such a script at Forschungszentrum Juelich:
http://redmine.iek.fz-juelich.de/projects/cfchecker. My colleague Michael
Decker (m.dec...@fz-juelich.de) will be happy to assist you if you have
questions. The tool has been developed in python.
Best regards,
Martin
Hi Charlie,
very good and extensive explanation of the potential use for groups and
group-aware metadata. Yet, I have a few remarks (which may in part reveal that
I should probably read the preamble of the CF convention again ;-):
Point 1: How does the user know she has all the
Hi again,
I fully support Jim's view! Let's not get hung up on whether
groups/hierarchies are good or bad. Instead we should consider them a reality
and an option rather than a must. They are a bit like a suitcase which you can
pack and unpack to carry things around or store them in your
Dear Jonathan (and John who replied offline),
* Would it be acceptable and useful to follow some other kinds of standard
name and call this air_pressure_expressed_as_altitude?
Actually, I think not. The goal of this quantity is really to describe
altitude, not pressure. This is different from
... but computing min max on the fly can also be very expensive.
We have aggregated model output datasets where each variable is more
than 1TB!
Sure, I can see that that's useful metadata about the dataset, and that
there's value in caching it somewhere. I just don't think it belongs with
Dear Aleksandar,
nice job! Putting your proposal on
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Standard_Names_For_Satellite_Observations#Proposal_.232
like this makes it easily tractable.
Sorry if I may be a little late, but upon reading through I have some minor
concerns about:
Dear Seth,
I believe your concerns nicely confirm Michael's and my viewpoint that the
real issue is a lack of functionality in the underlying netcdf library. If
done properly, the datetime representation in the file would of course be
numerical (python and certainly most other languages
Dear all,
as I am the at least one other person to whom Nan refered, let me
clarify my position:
1) I would strongly argue against adding another way of formatting time through
the backdoor via a standard_name.
2) I do see quite a bit of sense in re-modeling the date and time handling in
Dear all,
interesting discussion. From the point of view of an outsider (not dealing
with ocean data ;-) there are two issues which still aren't entirely clear to
me:
1) as Steve Hankin wrote, this variable has a potential to deflect from the
actual physical quantity, which is expressed
Dear Alison,
thank you for your email and sorry for the late reply. Yes - you are
perfectly right: all of these names are suggested additions, and we would like
to see them appear in the standard_name table.
Best regards,
Martin
-Original Message-
From: CF-metadata
Hi Phil,
while I agree with you that the only clean solution would have to be
defined in the netcdf API itself (not in CF), I don't think that groups are
what we are looking for here. This namespace thing is entirely related to
attributes, while groups are a variable concept. What would
Dear Jonathan, Philip,
good point! In practice, I think that expressed_as means something more
general than contained in so that the NOx_expressed_as_NO2 case is a
perfectly valid one. Indeed, that would be the standard_name that would be used
if official inventories were to adopt CF for
Dear all,
while re-processing the ACCMIP emission data set, we found an error in one
of the recent standard_name additions for emission mass fluxes:
Due to a typo in the source categories in the original sector definition which
we once submitted, there is now an error in the sector
Dear all,
as per the general CF philosophy to add terms when needed, we propose the
addition of the following standard_names for emissions from biomass burning.
These follow the syntax of existing names and merely add three chemical
species, namely nitrogen_dioxide, molecular_hydrogen,
Hi Andreas,
-Original Message-
From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf
Of Andreas Hilboll
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:53 AM
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for column amounts
(atmospheric
chemistry)
Dear Chris,
I think a solution shouldn't break current files which followed what had
been a standard for a long time (however ill-advised the standard was).[...]
while I fully support your pledge for backward compatibility, we should also
avoid stagnation because of too many old hassles that
Dear all,
I would also like to support this proposal. And I thank Philip for his
careful thinking.
If these were the only aspects to consider then I would be against the new
std_name. However, there
are many more species than ozone, and ozone is the only one that I see
expressed as
Great! Looking forward to test this!
Cheers,
Martin
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Leadbetter, Adam [mailto:al...@bodc.ac.uk]
Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2012 14:45
An: Lowry, Roy K.; Schultz, Martin; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Betreff: RE: [CF-metadata] Extensions to the Standard Name
Dear Roy,
thanks a lot for this nice example of true interoperability. Yet, two
questions remain: 1) what I would be even more interested in is the inverse
problem, i.e. given a standard_name, I would like to know which compound it
contains. 2) I expect that this is more difficult, in
Dear Philip, John and others,
I take the point that indeed a grammar approach would be the solution to
my problem. However, the grammar as it once stood based on Jonathan's python
program (which indeed works quite nicely) unfortunately doesn't help with
respect to the problem that I
Hi Roy,
exactly!Just how can we get there?
Cheers,
Martin
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk]
Gesendet: Samstag, 22. September 2012 18:24
An: Schultz, Martin; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Betreff: RE: [CF-metadata] Another potentially useful
Dear all,
during the recent discussion on compound_name as additional tag in the
standard_names.xml file and in relation to track ticket #90 it occurred to me
that another useful addition could be to express the need of certain variable
attributes in this table as well. This refers to the
still be useful and take a little
responsibility away from CF).
Cheers,
Martin
Von: John Graybeal [mailto:jgrayb...@ucsd.edu]
Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 18:28
An: Schultz, Martin
Cc: Lowry, Roy K.; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Betreff: Re: [CF-metadata] Expanding the standard_name metadata
Dear all,
last week, we had a rather successful workshop on Metadata for air
quality and atmospheric composition in Dublin. It was nice to see that the
community (i.e. those present) seemed to agree without much discussion, that
ISO 19115 (-1) is the way to go for discovery metadata,
weight to the
name. But perhaps I am still living too much in the web 1.0 world?
Cheers,
Martin
Von: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk]
Gesendet: Montag, 10. September 2012 11:03
An: Schultz, Martin; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Betreff: RE: Expanding the standard_name metadata
Hello Martin,
I
Dear Alison,
fine on both accounts. I suggest to use the comment attribute as you
suggested and give the appropriate hint in the definition text. I also second
the addition of Philip concerning the specification of the units. This later
topic may come up again -- if I recall correctly
Dear colleague,
with some delay, we are happy to announce that you can now register for
the GEO Air Quality Community of Practice meeting on “Metadata for Atmospheric
Composition and Air Quality” in Dublin (Morrison hotel), 5-7 September 2012.
The registration web page is at
First Announcement
Dear colleague,
The GEO AQ CoP is a self-organized voluntary group that fosters the application
of Earth observations to air quality management and science. Its participants
and its main beneficiaries are members of national and international science
teams, data
Dear all,
we appreciate the recognition of our Juelich CF checker and I can confirm
that we will maintain this tool during the coming years. There are certainly
pros and cons for merging the code bases:
PRO: less work for each team, higher chances to catch errors, (if definition
process is
Dear Alison (cc Hugo, Steve, Greg),
Looking back to the original proposal,
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2011/027071.html, you
have provided definitions of the emissions sectors in terms of 2006 IPCC
source categories. I have found the following document: http://www.ipcc-
: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 9:52 AM
To: Schultz, Martin
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] repost warming up old stuff - part 4: emissions
(hit send too early)
Hi Martin,
I guess you are referring to your emails from
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2011
Dear all,
on Oct 4, 2011, I had made a proposal to add
volume_extinction_coefficient_in_air_due_to_mie_scattering_of_ambient_aerosol.
This had been discussed and after clarification of a lower-case mie I was
under the impression that this has been accepted. However, it is not on the
Dear all,
on Oct. 3, 2011, the following standard_names were proposed. Despite
absence of any critical comments they appear neither on the standard_name list
nor in the current proposals list:
*mass_concentration_of_pm2p5_ambient_aerosol_in_air, units kg m-3
Definition: Mass
Dear all,
on Oct. 3 the following proposals were made and - if you take Philip's
endorsement as that - accepted. Yet, these names never made it anywhere on the
list:
* mole_fraction_of_hydrogen_sulfite_in_air, units 1 (meaning mole
mole-1)
Definition: Mole fraction is used in the
Dear all,
this is my final attempt to propose these new emission standard names. The
proposal dates back to June 8th, 2011 and has never been implemented. Here, I
provide the list of specific standard_name attributes we would like to see in
the list. The old emails detail the concept and
John Graybeal wrote:
+1. A notification of each new trac ticket would be ideal in my book, then I
can subscribe. I'd rather explicitly subscribe to the trac discussions I care
about.
While I appreciate that there is a lot of traffic inherent in the discussions
of
each variable, those
: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:43 PM
To: Schultz, Martin
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] 2. Re: [cf-satellite] Sharing quality flags among
multiple variables (Jonathan Gregory)
Dear Martin
what
Dear Jonathan, Philip,
I tend to lean towards the second alternative. Partly, because I believe
it is easier to understand, and partly, because I think that in most cases the
extra information which cell_bounds entered the daily max. 8-hour running
mean is not preserved (at least I never
Dear Jonathan,
oh! The wonderful world of semantics. I guess we could argue for a while
if the interval is supposed to be 1-hour or 8-hours in the case of a running
mean. But I would be prepared to settle for 1-hour as original resolution, so
let me answer your question directly: YES -
: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:40 AM
To: Schultz, Martin
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: daily maximum of running 8-hour means
Dear Martin
Yes, I agree, interval is an ambiguous word, unfortunately.
YES - there will be a need
Dear Philip, Jonathan,
1.) thanks for your helpful comments. After a little side discussion with
Philip, it appears that there is indeed a need for expressed_as phrases even
for molar quantities. Hence, my suggestion reduces to
* add mole_fraction_of_nox_in_air as an alias to
Dear all,
I am currently reviewing a set of variables from two major data hubs with
air quality data, and the objective is to enable those systems to serve
netcdf-CF data. Looking through their variables and descriptions, I came across
a couple of things and I would like to initiate the
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:33:26 +0100
From: Jonathan Gregory j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for stations
Dear Nan
Do we need to specify whether the _id is numeric or character? I'd
prefer to leave that to the user and his code.
Yes, I think we have
Jonathan, Kevin,
I don't think that it is necessary to further qualify burned_area. If you
do an internet search for this term you always come up with hits related to
wildfire which would suggest that there is little ambiguity in this term. I
propose to add the vegetation fire relationship
Dear all,
we would like to follow-up on a discussion we had about a year ago (see
posts by a.h...@fz-juelich.de from 23 March 2010 and reply by Philip and others
as well as related discussion on CO2 emissions).
Main point is the introduction of some sort of speciation for various
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:52:26 -0600
From: Steve Emmerson st...@unidata.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] physical vs dimensional units
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Message-ID: 4da60d0a.1010...@unidata.ucar.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 04/13/2011
Dear all,
Jonathan wrote:
I don't really agree with this. Units are units, not
descriptins of quantities.
grams of CO2 per grams of air is a mass mixing ratio and is
dimensionless.
[...]
Steve wrote:
The National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST)
agrees that information
Hi Chris et al.,
indeed it seems like some clarification is necessary about the use of
different calendars in modelling. Your suggestion to map the 360 day calendar
onto the Gregorian calendar in output files won't work: there would be no need
for a 360 day calendar if it would. The idea
Dear all,
in our work, we have often been confronted with the current limitations
where the only times allowed by CF are real times using the days since date
syntax and assuming the Gregorian calendar. We often have climatological
fields as model input data, where monthly variation is
Dear Robert,
this is great! I would definitively support any proposal to try and follow
this route in the future. However, it will require some further discussion how
to handle semantically incorrect names. As I understand it, the grammar can
ensure that we arrive at syntactically correct
Dear Jonathan et al.,
maybe I am fighting a lost battle here, but let me try to argue once more
for a generalized solution, i.e. the addition of anomaly as a standard name
modifier. I don't like the idea of adding a new standard name for each new
anomaly: i) this seems illogical and new
: Thursday, February 24, 2011 7:08 PM
To: Schultz, Martin
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard_name modifiers
Dear Martin
The idea of the modifiers was to provide standard names for
ancillary data, such as count of obs, standard error, and so
on. The other kinds of thing
Dear Jonathan,
I don't quite agree with the implication you derive from : In general, CF
metadata describes what a quantity *is* and not how it was calculated from
other quantities. -- a temperature difference is a temperature, but you don't
want to confuse it with a temperature (pun
Dear all (and Christina in particular),
if you'd like to get a second oppinion, please try the Juelich CF checker.
You can either access it graphically through
http://ogc-interface.icg.kfa-juelich.de:50080/upload (Browse for a file, click
Upload and then click on the log button in the
Dear all,
here is my daily fanpost (don't worry I will be quiet again at some
point;-):
in the discussion document on discrete sampling geometries a
recommendation is made to introduce a CF:featureType attribute (with values of
point, timeSeries, trajectory, etc.). While this is very
Dear all,
after searching the mailing list archive without success, I would like to
bring up the topic of the ISO19115 metadata standard for geographical
information and how to best map this into CF. Obviously, the ISO standard
builds on XML and its hierarchical structures, while (global)
: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:38 PM
To: Schultz, Martin; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: RE: CF standard_name irradiation ?
Hi Martin,
There are two Standard Names
'downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air' and
'downwelling_longwave_flux_in_air'. Do either of these fit
your data. I have
Hi again,
more on the CASTNET data. They provide
15,WINDSPEED,m/sec,Vector wind speed; m/sec.,NUMBER,16,4,
and
23,WINDSPEED_SCALAR,m/sec,Scalar wind speed; m/sec.,NUMBER,16,4,
The first appears to be a vector average = sqrt( mean(u)**2 + mean(v)**2 )
the second is = mean( sqrt(u**2 +
Dear colleagues,
we just posted a summary of CF problems which were encountered in the
TFHTAP multi-model initiative and their fixes on the HTAP Wiki:
http://htap.icg.fz-juelich.de/data/CFAdaption (or go to
http://htap.icg.fz-juelich.de/ then navigate to HTAP Model and Experiment
Dear colleagues,
we would like to announce the availability of a new CF checker tool
available at
http://htap.icg.kfa-juelich.de:50080/upload
Presently, it checks for CF-1.0 compliance, but upgrades are planned to
include later revisions as well. The tool was developed in the
Dear John, Philip and Christiane,
unless mankind will burn all coal, oil and gas, water vapour is
probably the only constitutent that actually has any noticable impact on
the distinction between X/(air including X) and X/(air not including
X). To my knowledge, practically *all* models always
Hi Martina,
thanks for your valuable comments.
2. Martin/Jonathan concerning syntax definition for chemical
quantities
basically the physical_quantity_of_X_in_medium_as_identity
level of Martina's
proposal
Actually, for me the 'as_identity' was part of the constituent X,
e.g.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Philip J. Cameronsmith wrote:
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for chemistry - MCM
[...] In practice, gas phase chemicals are typically recorded using number of
moles, while aerosols are usually recorded using mass. Hence, the G for
gases, A
Re: standard names for chemistry - MCM (Heinke Hoeck)
Dear All,
I don't agree with Martin and Philip.
...
example:
dimensions:
lat=72;
lon=124;
maxlen=30;
float quantity(lat,lon,height,time) ;
quantity:standard_name = mass_fraction_of_constituent_in_air ;
quantity:units = 1 ;
Dear Jonathan, Philip, Martina, et al.,
first of all: many thanks for carrying this forward! This is now
becoming especially important because there is an operational service for
atmospheric composition on the horizon which will need a good standard
definition of its output.
I have a
78 matches
Mail list logo
