NOTE: The cf-satellite mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Hi Randy... I'm wondering if some of the constructs put forth for the radar people might address the "coordinates" issue you raise. As far as I know, nothing is "blessed" yet my the CF committee for radar scans, but the geometry (3D vector and a solid angle) might be common. Others with more knowledge about this will have to comment, though...I'm out of my element on this one ;-) tom On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Randy Horne <rhorne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Tom: > > I might have read or deduced this, but, in any case, the essence of > conforming to CF compliance revolves around being able to locate the data in > space and time. The conventions for locating data in space revolve around > coordinate variables and the related CF conventions. > > Solar and space weather data directly related to climate and forecasting here > on the earth can make use of many of the existing CF constructs, but the CF > constructs to locate data in space have little relevance. > > On GOES-R we have solar images and we also have space weather data where its > location is a 3D vector and a solid angle (i.e. a cone looking off into > space). > > The implication is that these extensions to the CF conventions need to > augment the existing CF core coordinate variable related constructs. > > Is this going to be palatable to this community or is just establishing a > new, independent set of conventions, which can make use of the relevant CF > conventions to the extent possible, the way to go ? > > > > very respectfully, > > randy > > > > > On Jul 13, 2012, at 4:26 PM, Tom Whittaker wrote: > >> Randy... >> >> I see no reason why not. As we have discussed for geo satellites, >> though, we may need to make extensions to get some conventions >> established where they do not already exist (e.g., 'band') so that >> application developers can put in code to recognize these conventions. >> >> tom >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Randy Horne <rhorne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> Dear all: >>> >>> Is it a given that the CF conventions apply to data below, at, or above the >>> surface of the earth ? >>> >>> >>> very respectfully, >>> >>> randy >>> >>> ____________________________________ >>> >>> Randy C. Horne (rhorne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) >>> Principal Engineer, Excalibur Laboratories Inc. >>> voice & fax: (321) 952.5100 >>> url: http://www.excaliburlabs.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cf-satellite mailing list >>> cf-satellite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: >>> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/ >> >> >> >> -- >> Tom Whittaker >> University of Wisconsin-Madison >> Space Science & Engineering Center (SSEC) >> Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS) >> 1225 W. Dayton Street >> Madison, WI 53706 USA >> ph: +1 608 262 2759 >> > > > ____________________________________ > > Randy C. Horne (rhorne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > Principal Engineer, Excalibur Laboratories Inc. > voice & fax: (321) 952.5100 > url: http://www.excaliburlabs.com > > > > -- Tom Whittaker University of Wisconsin-Madison Space Science & Engineering Center (SSEC) Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS) 1225 W. Dayton Street Madison, WI 53706 USA ph: +1 608 262 2759
cf-satellite archives: