[CF-metadata] Composite area types in CMIP6 data

Karl Taylor taylor13 at llnl.gov
Fri Jan 6 10:29:48 MST 2017

Hi Martin and Jonathan,

An alternative would be to (generally) allow elemental area_types to be 
combined with logical not/and/or connectors.  area_types are used either 
as labels (stored in a variable pointed to by the coordinates attribute) 
or in cell_methods.  In both cases parsing combined types would be 
straightforward.   In your example their would only be a single 
area_type coordinate, and the value of the coordinate could simply be 
"pastures .and. c4_plant_functional_types" or even "pastures and 

I know this appears like a significant change to the convention, but 
since area_types are just strings, I suspect that software won't care 
how long the strings are.   I doubt if any existing software would trip 
over the compound area types (except perhaps the CF checker?).

best wishes,

On 1/6/17 8:59 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Martin
> It's legal to have more than one axis of a given standard_name but it is
> possibly inconvenient, because analysis software could not use the standard_
> name of those two coordinate variables to distinguish them; instead, it would
> have to use the long_name or the variable name, which is not a CF-like method.
> Another possibility would be to introduce new standard_names, which are
> more precise, such as area_type_of_land_use and area_type_of_vegetation in this
> case, while also keeping area_type as the union. That would require a
> rearrangement of the area_type table.
> On the whole, I think in this case it would be best to introduce a new
> combined area_type of pastures_of_c4_plant_functional_types i.e. flatten it.
> I guess this will also be more convenient for analysts than having to search
> the combination of two dimensions. You are right of course that doing this
> could turn the area_type table into an N^2 or even an N^n problem, which would
> be unmanageable, but if this is the *only* use-case, or even if we had a dozen
> such use-cases, it is not a problem. Thus, I would say we cross this bridge
> when we come to it, rather than anticipating a problem which hasn't arisen
> yet.
> Best wishes
> Jonathan
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 11:43:57AM +0000, martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 11:43:57 +0000
>> From: martin.juckes at stfc.ac.uk
>> To: j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk, taylor13 at llnl.gov, alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk
>> CC: chris.d.jones at metoffice.gov.uk, cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: Composite area types in CMIP6 data
>> Hello,
>> In CMIP6 we have a request for some data on pasture land with C4 functional type. We already have CF area types for pasture and c4 plants in general. We could construct the required information as follows:
>>      float pastureFracC4(time, lat, lon) ;
>>          pastureFracC4:coordinates = "type ftpye" ;
>>          pastureFracC4: standard_name = "area_fraction";
>>          ......
>>      char type(strlen) ;
>>          type:long_name = "Pasture Land" ;
>>          type:standard_name = "area_type" ;
>>      char ftype(strlen) ;
>>          ftype:long_name = "Plant Functional Type" ;
>>          ftype:standard_name = "area_type" ;
>> data:
>>   type = "patsures" ;
>>   ftype = "c4_plant_functional_types";
>> This would provide the information that the variable pastureFracC4 refers to areas that are both "pastures" and "c4_plant_functional_types". An altenative would be to add a new area type, but I have the feeling that the area_type list will become unmanagable if we keep adding new terms for combinations of existing terms.  Can anyone see a problem with using two area_type coordinates?
>> regards,
>> Martin

More information about the CF-metadata mailing list