Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

clarify details related to ancillary_variables #239

Open
jenseva opened this issue May 31, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

clarify details related to ancillary_variables #239

jenseva opened this issue May 31, 2024 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
1.X For stuff to postpone and resolve only after the 1.0 release

Comments

@jenseva
Copy link
Collaborator

jenseva commented May 31, 2024

moderator: @OceanGlidersCommunity/format-maintainers

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

:ancillary_variables: Are you planning to allow flexibility in ancillary var name? This is not clear in the manual. Right now the qc var names look rigid.

In my files I can often use the same qc var for two variables. For example, gps_latitude and gps_longitude vars have the same qc and flags so only one var is needed (gps_qc). I assume this is acceptable to OG-1.0, but not 100% clear.

Is this related to a specific platform models

I expect this is common practice for many types of gliders.

Describe the solution you'd like

Clarify in the documentation that flexibility in ancillary variable name is allowed and that one qc var can be used for multiple variables.

I can make a PR for this if there is agreement.

@jenseva jenseva self-assigned this May 31, 2024
@castelao
Copy link
Member

castelao commented Jun 1, 2024

Good point. I agree that ancillary_variables should be flexible. Somehow in the documentation it would be worth saying that it is strongly recommended to use when relevant.

@emmerbodc
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm keen to keep the _QC fixed as it is using the OG1 vocabulary for

@jenseva
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jenseva commented Jun 1, 2024

Yes, the _qc remains the same, but it would be good to have flexibility in the text before that.

Where for instance: gps_latitude and gps_longitude vars have the same flag variable named gps_qc. The mapping to the qc vars is always clearly listed in the ancillary_variables attribute which is used by both humans and machines easily.

Without this ability the OG files will be larger, requiring replication of qc variables. The impact of this is doubles when using primary and secondary flag variables. I recommend this approach because it is both user-friendly and space-friendly.

@vturpin
Copy link
Member

vturpin commented Jun 3, 2024

Is this only applicable for locations ?

@jenseva
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jenseva commented Jun 7, 2024

This would apply to any situation where one qc variable represents the qc for multiple PARAM variables.

A statement along the lines of, "In cases where one qc variable applies to multiple variables, the portion of qc variable name preceding _qc can be determined by the provider. For an example of this scenario, see the gps variables in the Spray sp028 example file."

@vturpin
Copy link
Member

vturpin commented Jun 7, 2024

I see the point. This flexibility seems fine to me.

@vturpin vturpin added the 1.X For stuff to postpone and resolve only after the 1.0 release label Jun 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
1.X For stuff to postpone and resolve only after the 1.0 release
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants