[Go-essp-tech] Extending the DRS syntax to observations

[Steve Hankin]

Hi Luca,

Just below is a version of your email of this morning which has minor 
editorial changes (*in red*) to reflect a broader outlook on the term 
"observations", and an initial proposal for gridded /in situ/ 
observations.    I think if we adopt language like this we will be glad 
of it in the long term:

     - Steve

    *Open Questions*

        * Agree on basic DRS-like structure for observations and meaning
          of each field
              o Use activity="cmip5" or activity="cmip54obs", "obs4models" ?
              o DRS hierarchy for models (partial): "institute" >
                "model" > "experiment" > "ensemble"
              o Current proposed hierarchy for *gridded* *remote sensed*
                observations (partial): "institute" (="agency") >
                "mission" > "instrument" > ("processing level" + "other
                specifiers")
              o Alternative proposal for *gridded remote sensed*
                observations (partial): "institute" (="agency") >
                "instrument" > "processing level" > ?
              o Need a proposal for *gridded in situ observations*,
                say:  "institute" (="agency") > "program" >
                "resolution"> "variant" ?
                    + e.g. NOAA/NCAR / ICOADS / 1degree / equatorial /
              o Should we even attempt to describe in situ (point and
                trajectory) observations through DRS?  (can we succeed
                at this?)
        * Decide on whether to have one single CMOR table for
          observations (currently "obsSites"), or more than one
          depending on types of observational data:
              o remote sensed (grids and swaths)
              o in-situ stations (time series and profiles)
              o trajectory-based observations
              o in-situ gridded products
        * Decide on whether to encode global attributes for data source
          in netcdf files ("source", "source_datastream", "source_url",
          "source_reference")

    *Action Items*

        * Populate CV for observations (decide on upper/lower case)
        * Produce some reference datasets
        * Develop snippet of "esg.ini" (ESG publisher) configuration for
          processing observations



On 1/31/2011 6:58 AM, Cinquini, Luca (3880) wrote:
> Hi all,
> thanks to everybody for the lively discussion... I just wanted to 
> summarize what I think is the status so far - I posted this also on 
> the wiki. Please keep the discussion going...
> thanks, Luca
>
> *Open Questions*
>
>     * Agree on basic DRS-like structure for observations and meaning
>       of each field
>           o Use activity="cmip5" or activity="cmip54obs", "obs4models" ?
>           o DRS hierarchy for models (partial): "institute" > "model"
>             > "experiment" > "ensemble"
>           o Current proposed hierarchy for observations (partial):
>             "institute" (="agency") > "mission" > "instrument" >
>             ("processing level" + "other specifiers")
>           o Alternative proposal for observations
>             (partial): "institute" (="agency") > "instrument" >
>             "processing level" > ?
>     * Decide on wether to have one single CMOR table for observations
>       (currently "obsSites"), or more than one depending on types of
>       observational data:
>           o remote sensed (grids and swaths)
>           o in-situ stations (time series and profiles)
>           o trajectory-based observations
>           o in-situ gridded products
>     * Decide on wether to encode global attributes for data source in
>       netcdf files ("source", "source_datastream", "source_url",
>       "source_reference")
>
> *Action Items*
>
>     * Populate CV for observations (decide on upper/lower case)
>     * Produce some reference datasets
>     * Develop snippet of "esg.ini" (ESG publisher) configuration for
>       processing observations
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2011, at 2:42 AM, Bryan Lawrence wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Folks
>>
>> Sorry I've come late to this discussion.
>>
>> I've got just two simple points to make (for now).
>>
>> Firstly, I think this activity (organising observational data to support
>> CMIP5) is not the same as cmip5 itself.  Sooner or later things break in
>> the DRS heirarchy doing this, and so I think it would be helpful to all
>> consumers if this was dealt with at the top level of the DRS.
>> Additionally, remember obs are timeless, models are not. This data will
>> be useful beyond cmip5 (e.g. cordex). So I recommend *not*  shoehorning
>> all the obs data under cmip5 in the DRS.
>>
>> The DRS allows you to define new activiites, and I'd do so, something
>> like obs4models or (if you must) cmip5obs ....
>>
>> Otherwise I'm fine with the approach.
>>
>> Secondly, wrt to Steve's list below: there is of course swath data as
>> well ... but otherwise I rather agree that 3 and 1 can be handled the
>> same.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Bryan
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/go-essp-tech/attachments/20110131/3ccbb1e9/attachment-0001.html