[Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary

[V. Balaji]

One use case we've been talking about is that if a user finds a "gfdl"
file and sets up a wget for it, they can wget the corresponding "ukmo"
file with a fairly simple edit. Or set up a loop in a script

foreach foo ( "gfdl" "ukmo" ... )
   wget .../$foo/...
end

This redundancy will make it somewhat more complicated.

Karl Taylor writes:

> Dear Stephen,
>
> I think some of the modeling groups will be reluctant to remove some
> indication of institution from their model names.  For example, HadGEM1
> includes an indication that this is a Hadley center model.  They
> wouldn't want to shorten it to GEM1.  Similarly MIROC4.2(M) couldn't
> eliminate institute from the name.  The "model name" is meant to be used
> *as is* by researchers when they want to identify a model in a
> publication.  For this reason modeling groups should have the freedom to
> specify what the model name is without too many restrictions.
>
> In some cases there will obviously be some redundancy between
> institution and model name, but I think this is o.k.  Groups may, of
> course, omit any indication of institute in their model name and that is
> o.k. too.
>
> Best regards,
> Karl
>
>
>
> On 6/28/10 1:39 AM, stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>>
>>> Since the institute names are fairly short, it might not be so bad to
>>>
>> include them in the model name. It
>>
>>> has the advantage of making the models unique, which simplifies
>>>
>> searching.
>>
>>> If the duplication is undesirable, my preference would be to not use
>>>
>> the institute name in the directory
>>
>>> structure at all, and thereby reduce the number of levels.
>>>
>> I'm agnostic on the merit of separating institute and model but since
>> it's been in the DRS document for months I feel the decision has been
>> made and we should comply with it.  With separate DRS components for
>> institute and model it is counter-productive to include the institute in
>> the model name.  The institute component becomes redundant and searching
>> for a particular model, wherever it was run, becomes more difficult.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Stephen Pascoe  +44 (0)1235 445980
>> British Atmospheric Data Centre
>> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bob Drach [mailto:drach1 at llnl.gov]
>> Sent: 25 June 2010 18:56
>> To: Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
>> Cc: Bob Drach; Charles Doutriaux; go-essp-tech at ucar.edu; Karl Taylor
>> Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> I don't know if Charles is around - I'll add my two cents.
>>
>> On Jun 25, 2010, at 8:44 AM,<stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk>
>> <stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Bob, Charles
>>>
>>> Thanks for this, distributing these mappings are really important for
>>> getting the DRS structure right.  I'm trying to reconcile this mapping
>>>
>>
>>> with our DRS-checking code.
>>>
>>> I have a few questions about the model ->  institute mappings:
>>>
>>> * How does these mappings relate to the directory structure created by
>>>
>>
>>> CMOR.  For instance the model ids in the link are a combination of
>>> model and institute from the DRS.  I don't think CMOR will produce
>>> directories of the form CMIP5/output/MOHC/MOHC-HADCM3/... it will be
>>> CMIP5/output/MOHC/HADCM3/...
>>>
>> Since the institute names are fairly short, it might not be so bad to
>> include them in the model name. It has the advantage of making the
>> models unique, which simplifies searching. If the duplication is
>> undesirable, my preference would be to not use the institute name in the
>> directory structure at all, and thereby reduce the number of levels.
>>
>>
>>> * Which institutions do the GISS-E and MIROC* models map to?  I have
>>> sketched in NASA and NIES but these don't appear in your institute
>>> list
>>>
>> Probably GISS or NASA GISS, CCSR for MIROC. Karl may have an opinion.
>> It should ultimately be the modelling group's choice.
>>
>>
>>> * Which models map to institute NCC?
>>>
>> ncc-noresm
>>
>>> * CMOR appears to use upper case for model and institute names.  Is
>>> there a reason why you have lower case here?
>>>
>> Only because that's the convention we used for CMIP3. The comparisons
>> should be case insensitive IMO.
>>
>>
>>> * The institute "CNRM/CERFACS" is clearly inappropriate for use in the
>>> DRS since it can't translate into a directory name.  Is CNRM
>>> sufficient?
>>>
>> I believe so, with the same caveat as above.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Stephen.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Stephen Pascoe  +44 (0)1235 445980
>>> British Atmospheric Data Centre
>>> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: go-essp-tech-bounces at ucar.edu
>>> [mailto:go-essp-tech-bounces at ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Drach
>>> Sent: 17 June 2010 19:44
>>> To: GO-ESSP
>>> Subject: [Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary
>>>
>>> I've posted a summary of the CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary, as
>>> represented in the ESG publisher configuration. See:
>>>
>>> http://**esg-pcmdi.llnl.gov/internal/esg-data-node-documentation/
>>> cmip5_con
>>> trolled_vocab.txt/view
>>>
>>> The document is also linked from the CMIP5 website.
>>>
>>> Some of the model information is not yet complete, particularly the
>>> URLs
>>> associated with each model. It is also likely that more models will be
>>> added to the list. Please let me know of any errors or omissions.
>>>
>>> Bob D.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
>>> GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
>>> http://**mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech
>>> --
>>> Scanned by iCritical.
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
> GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech
>

-- 

V. Balaji                               Office:  +1-609-452-6516
Head, Modeling Systems Group, GFDL      Home:    +1-212-253-6662
Princeton University                    Email: v.balaji at noaa.gov