Dear Randy
It would seem we have settled on
area_fraction_of_day_defined_by_solar_zenith_angle,
area_fraction_of_night_defined_by_solar_zenith_angle, and
area_fraction_of_twilight_defined_by_solar_zenith_angle.
These names and definitions look fine to me, if you think they'll serve your
Karl:
sorry about the delay in moving this discussion forward.
Thinking through your counter-proposal of making use of the existing
standard_name area_fraction, and adding area_types for day, night, and
twilight
In our application these area_fractions are defined in terms of solar zenith
Karl:
Here is the first sentence in the definition of area_type:
A variable with the standard name of area_type contains strings which indicate
the nature of the surface e.g. land, sea, sea_ice.
Assuming we want to be consistent with the examples in the definition and the
existing
Hi Randy,
Yes, I agree it extends the meaning of area_type a bit, but I would
think we could legitimately describe the nature of the surface as
being sunlit or in darkness (covered by the darkness of night) or
enjoying the last vestiges of daylight (i.e., twilight), so I don't
think we
Dear Randy
Thanks for this useful summary.
You favour
(3) make use of existing area_fraction names and qualify the type of
area_fraction with one or more coordinate variable(s) and accompany use of
cell_methods attribute
pros: no need for an additional standard name, unambiguous,
Dear Jonathan:
good point on “area”.
“twilight” is fine.
I’m good with your preference of [a hybrid of (1) and (2) (i.e.
area_fraction_of_night_defined_by_solar_zenith_angle,
area_fraction_of_day_defined_by_solar_zenith_angle,
area_fraction_of_twilight_defined_by_solar_zenith_angle)]
very
Dear Randy, Jonathan, and all,
I agree that the hybrid choice with twilight rather than terminator,
is clearest.
Just to cover all the options (or maybe to revisit a suggestion I missed
earlier), could new area_type(s) be defined -- day, night, twilight --
and then we could just use the
Dear Jonathan:
All the options identified so far all have pros and cons. I’ll take a crack at
a summary-level recap ….
(1) add a type of area fraction consistent with current definition of existing
area_fraction (i.e.. day_area_fracton, night_area_fraction,
From: Randy Horne rho...@excaliburlabs.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 8:11 AM
To: Jonathan Gregory j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk
Cc: CF Metadata List cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] new standard names: day, night, and day/night
terminator area_fractions
Dear
Dear Karl
I don't find area_fraction_of_solar_zenith_angle to be
understandable and I'm not sure the phrase makes sense.
What do you think about the somewhat longer possibility
area_fraction_as_a_function_of_solar_zenith_angle
?
Cheers
Jonathan
Area_fraction_with_solar_zenith_angle_within_stated_bounds ?
On Jan 6, 2014, at 08:38, Jim Biard jbi...@cicsnc.org wrote:
Hi, and Happy New Year!
I tried writing out the definition repeatedly, making it more and more
succinct, and came up with some possible names.
The sequence went
Dear Jim
I agree that within stated bounds is explicit and self-explanatory but I
feel that we shouldn't need to say that, because this is true for any variable
at all which has coordinates with bounds, and we have not said it in any other
standard name. It should be implied by saying there is a
]new standard names: day, night, and day/night
terminator area_fractions
Dear Jim
I agree that within stated bounds is explicit and self-explanatory but I
feel that we shouldn't need to say that, because this is true for any
variable
at all which has coordinates with bounds, and we have
Jonathan,
I agree with what you have said. I was trying to see if I found something that
might be more succinct, and that was the direction my explorations took me.
The only bone I have to pick with “as_a_function_of” is that I find it a bit
confusing. In the case at hand, the name
] new standard names: day, night, and day/night
terminator area_fractions
Dear Jim
I agree that within stated bounds is explicit and self-explanatory but I
feel that we shouldn't need to say that, because this is true for any variable
at all which has coordinates with bounds, and we have
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] new standard names: day, night, and day/night
terminator area_fractions
Dear Jim
I agree that within stated bounds is explicit and self-explanatory but I
feel that we shouldn't need to say that, because this is true for any variable
Dear Randy
Thanks for this proposal. If I understand it correctly, you divide time (and
hence area) into day, night and something intermediate (twilight, I suppose).
Since you have to define these three in terms of solar zenith angle, maybe it
would be simpler to have just one standard_name.
Jonathan:
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Some of the algorithms that generate our level 2 products using hyper spectral
observation data are sensitive to the solar zenith angle. For these products,
variables capturing the percentage of the product image in day, night, and
twilight
Dear Randy
a single standard name of area_fraction_of_solar_zenith_angle is fine. This
form could be useful for area fractions of other angles, such as platform
zenith angle.
Yes, true. If you're happy with it, then fine.
As far as a definition goes, how about:
fraction of horizontal
Dear Jonathan:
RE:
The first sentence is not clear to me. Does it mean, The fraction of the
horizontal area where the solar zenith angle is within a specified range?
Yes, that is what it means.
Incorporating this more clear statement yields the following:
area_fraction_of_solar_zenith_angle
Hi all,
I don't find area_fraction_of_solar_zenith_angle to be understandable
and I'm not sure the phrase makes sense. I don't see how you can have
an area of a solar zenith angle (or an area_fraction of an angle).
One could also be misled into thinking this was somehow related to the
21 matches
Mail list logo
