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

Tue Jun 29 01:51:32 MDT 2010

Hello Bryan,

Your right, my statement was too general. I was thinking of experiments
done at Bristol with HADCM3 as perturbations of a larger set of
experiments done at MOHC under the QUMP program. 

Cheers,
Martin 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Lawrence [mailto:bryan.lawrence at stfc.ac.uk]
> Sent: 28 June 2010 15:56
> To: go-essp-tech at ucar.edu
> Cc: Juckes, Martin (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD);
> taylor13 at llnl.gov; Drach1 at llnl.gov; doutriaux1 at llnl.gov
> Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary
> 
> hi Martin
> 
> > On Stephen's question about what the "institute" represents I think
> >  the answer is neither the institute that created the model nor the
> >  one that ran it, but the institute that is responsible for a suite
> >  of experiments. Thus, MOHC is responsible for all experiments done
> >  in the UK with their models. This is important, as it guarantees
> >  that control and perturbation experiments which might be carried
out
> >  by different institutions will not be split into different branches
> >  of the DRS,
> 
> Sorry, that's not my understanding. (I've had a side chat with the
NERC
> higem folks about this). I  *do* think the only definition of
> institution
> that makes sense is those responsible for managing the information
> within CMIP5 (which in many cases, but not all, will be the same as
> those who ran the simulations).
> 
> The MOHC is responsible for whatever they want to be responsible for.
> If, for example, as is likely, the Oxford folks want to bring along
> ClimatePrediction.net runs, they'll be HadCM3 but the institution will
> probalby be Oxford.
> 
> It looks like the institution for HiGEM will be NERC, and the model
> name
> will be HiGEM-1-2, but with the definition of NERC exploding out into
a
> list of institutions ... beyond NERC alone.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: go-essp-tech-bounces at ucar.edu [mailto:go-essp-tech-
> > > bounces at ucar.edu] On Behalf Of stephen.pascoe at stfc.ac.uk
> > > Sent: 28 June 2010 15:07
> > > To: taylor13 at llnl.gov
> > > Cc: Drach1 at llnl.gov; go-essp-tech at ucar.edu; doutriaux1 at llnl.gov
> > > Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary
> > >
> > > > I think some of the modelling 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.
> > >
> > > Hi Karl, I wasn't suggesting striping "Had" from Hadley centre
> > > models but Bob had the term "mohc-hadgem1-2" which seems redundant
> > > to me.  I think this is partially a branding question.  I think of
> > > HadGEM1 as a model that was created at MOHC but which might be run
> > > by another institution.  In fact I'm slightly surprised we don't
> > > have a Had*
> >
> > model
> >
> > > from NERC in our CMIP5 mapping but I guess it's up to the
> > > institutions to decide how they brand their contributions to
CMIP5.
> > >
> > > Maybe the definition of the DRS institution is a bit vague.  Is it
> > > the owners of the model codebase or the institution where the
> > > simulation was
> > > done?
> > >
> > > S.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Stephen Pascoe  +44 (0)1235 445980
> > > British Atmospheric Data Centre
> > > Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Karl Taylor [mailto:taylor13 at llnl.gov]
> > > Sent: 28 June 2010 14:55
> > > To: Pascoe, Stephen (STFC,RAL,SSTD)
> > > Cc: Drach, Bob; Doutriaux, Charles; go-essp-tech at ucar.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] CMIP5 / DRS controlled vocabulary
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Scanned by iCritical.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
> > > GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
> > > http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech
> >
> 
> --
> Bryan Lawrence
> Director of Environmental Archival and Associated Research
> (NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre and NCEO/NERC NEODC)
> STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> Phone +44 1235 445012; Fax ... 5848;
> Web: home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.