Log In
Home
Topic RSS
Offline
Hello everyone
As the site characterisation form has to be ready by September 2014, it's time to continue our discussion on this subject.
But before we do so, I would like to thank Volodya, Diamantino and Zoltan for their useful inputs so far!
I have created a new version of the form, this time using google docs, as was proposed by Diamantino:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12HSZ5MQa1-9sBpzMqEGM-Bf-ytpfDtklxnSdNZ5LaGs/edit?usp=sharing
Does everyone agree to use a google form to collect the information for the different sites? (Alberto, is it possible to incorporate/link this kind of document to the Eubrewnet database?)
- Concerning the climatological information for each station:
I have now added room for the climatological classification of the station, the temperature range (should this be on a monthly basis?) and the amount of sunny days (for each year?).
Are there any other parameters that should be included? (eg. Parameters that are of special interest to WG1 and/or WG2?)
- Maintenance frequency (how often the dome and window are cleaned) is now also included in the form.
Are there other maintenance actions that should be done on a regular basis and that should be included in the form?
- Volodya suggested that there should be a seperate table for each instrument type (Mk II, Mk III etc) with specific information such as multiple board vs single board electronics, availability of the humidity sensor, short range versus extende range in Mk IV etc. There are some instrument type specific tables on the woudc website:
for Mk II: http://woudc.org/data/Metadata.....KII_e.html
for Mk III: http://woudc.org/data/Metadata.....III_e.html
for Mk IV: http://woudc.org/data/Metadata.....KIV_e.html
Which information (apart from the items mentioned by Volodya and the items in the WOUDC forms) would be essential to list in a seperate form?
- Should there be information on the frequency and distribution of the tests that are performed?
- WG2: do you want the site characterisation form to include information on the different corrections that have been made to the measurements?
That's it for now. I am looking forward to your suggestions and/or comments!
Veerle
Offline
Hello
When we agree on the form can be easyli implemented on the database, for the moment the porblem i see is threre is so many information in one form, it will be easier to implement and organize if we split the information into sections : station, instrument, operation, calibration.
a) We try to collect the information collected in other dastabases, Bentorey from Izana has now a STSM to Boulder to see how the neubrew is organized, and we can compare also with WOUDC and Canadian database.
b) We have to link to information already available in other places , GAWSIS, calibration information in IOS/WOUDC
In any case your spreadsheet is a good start and easyly convert to a form
Alberto
Offline
Hi,
the form looks fine and is a good start. I fully agree with Alberto that the data will have to be split in several tables. Whether it needs to be done at the stage of the online form or later when the information gets transferred to the database is a matter of implementation.
I'd also suggest using the Brewer files for collecting some of the information (location, UV extended range, software version, observation frequency).
Depending on how soon the database is ready this form can be partially filled with data from the b- and uv-files. This, of course, is in addition to the other databases information that is already available as Alberto mentioned. Speaking of which, maybe it will be useful to have a protocol of information exchange so that if EUBREWNET uses information from other databases then they also can use data from EUBREWNET?
Volodya
Offline
Hello all,
just a short comment on what would maybe suit WG2 needs. I think it might be useful to have information on what kind of characterizations have been made for the instrument, because that affects the level of data retrieval. For example if the instrument is characterized for example for cosine response, temperature response (for both direct and diffuse ports?), slit functions (at least single), stray light (comparison to double?), filters (attenuation coefficients and wavelength dependence).
I think this has to be put also into some setting file for the data reduction also but still might be good to have it in the form anyway. If we figure out the data levels then maybe all this information can be put inside the data level information. By that i mean if we say for example 037 to produce Level 2B (or what ever the level system will be) UV data that would already tell us that the data is cosine corrected and this information does not need to be put out anymore. But maybe it is easier to just have it in the form.
Tomi
Offline
Hello everyone
I have created a new version of the form, taking into account the comments from previous correspondence and from the Delft meeting:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JECxJ2GCQKH3hTmFwdABq-C70lT9Em_3h2mdxOoT6Ko/edit?usp=sharing.
I have put all the information that could be copied from GAWSIS (http://gaw.empa.ch/gawsis/) in blue.
Information in red ('instrument type' and 'other databases') points to 2 separate tables. These are currently included in the form, but they will become separate tables linked to the general form.
I guess the 'general site information' and 'brewer instrument information' will also become two separate tables.
Concerning the information that is provided in GAWSIS:
as I mentioned during my presentation in Delft, not all the information is correct and/or up to date and not every station provides the same amount of detailed information.
So how do we deal with this if we want to copy some of the information from GAWSIS into our metadata form?
We could maybe send an email to the station operators to check the information that is currently in GAWSIS and ask them to correct the information?
Other suggestions are most welcome!
Veerle
Offline
I've added a comment to the doc asking about a possibility to stay away from units/direction in the lat/lon/alt fields so that a computer program can parse info easily.
Volodya
Offline
Hi,
I made a google form based on the Veerle doc. Please, check it : https://docs.google.com/forms/d/16QJfFi3zrhuNDmCO_hxY5CzlQE9-3o2VhDkKXGQfyWU/viewform
The responses can be seen in this sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TikouMNrTFiY5NsnMGU2XFOKahMkW7rmMWfNUanrmnw/edit?usp=sharing
I think this sheet can be more easily used to search, filter, sort, etc.
Please, be free to test, comment, etc.
Diamantino.
Offline
Thanks Volodya and Diamantino for your comments!
And thanks Diamantino for creating the form! To me it looks fine and it is indeed an easy way to get all the information together.
To answer the comments:
- concerning the climatological information:
1) sunny days: I agree to use the maximum and minimum monthly average daily sunshine duration (hours) for the different months
2) temperature range: I think annual average minimum and maximum temperatures would be fine?
- concerning the ancillary measurements:
I think it's up to the user to fill in the information that he/she thinks is useful and related to the Brewer measurements. This could be other ozone measurements (ozone soundings, dobson measurements), AOD measurements (eg from Cimel), solar radiation measurements (eg. pyranometer), cloudiness measurements, etc.
- within the Brewer instrument information section, there's room for 'available measurements'.
This would be the Brewer measurements (ozone, UV, AOD) that are available through the database and their according levels. So this information would have to be extracted from the database itself (if possible).
- concerning instrument type:
I have added the Dobson, based on a comment from Tom McElroy during the meeting in Delft. He suggested to have room for the Dobson in the database, in case that somewhere in the future we would decide to include Dobson measurements in our database.
You are correct that the 'unknown' category makes no sense...
Veerle
Members
Offline
Hello everybody,
I've started with the process of add the metadata form to the Eubrewnet, taking as start point the one suggested by Diamantino (See the above post by him) , but I have some questions about it.
Some of the information is related to a Brewer (like model and measures) but other is related to the place where the Brewers are deployed (latitude, longitude....).
For implementation purposes, I need to know exactly what's the relation between the Locations and Brewers and if it change in time.
I began defining a station which is going to have information about the places where Brewer are deployed (from Diamantions Form):
- Station Id
- Gaw Id
- Wmo Id
- Latitude
- Longitude
- Altitude
- and so on ....
And thinking out a way to link this information to the brewers over time (for example with the information of their available measures)
How are the ways we are going to use this values? Are only to show information or are they needed for calculations? Which of them are going to be generated (as available measures)? Which of them come from other databases?
Bentor
Offline
Hello,
in my database, I keep information about locations/stations and about Brewers in separate tables. The Brewer table should be able to handle multiple versions for the same Brewer serial number. Having multiple versions of stations should also be possible in the implementation.
Everything that is usually needed for the currently used Brewer algorithm is available in the b-files, but analyzing data from several instruments may require additional information that can come from these "meta" tables.
An example of a query that one might do is "which stations within 2000 km radius from where Brewer ### was on Dec. 4, 2015 had Brewer MKIII, are at altitude 500 m or higher and launched ozone sondes?"
Hope this helps,
Volodya
Members
Offline
Hello All,
Thank you Volodya, it helps a lot. More or less was what I was thinking about was to create an additional table for station information and other to link this information in time with Brewers.
The design would be like this:
Brewer Table (It's implemented now): Brewer id, present latitude and longitude (from the B files), status, last time of transmission...
Station Table: latitude, longitude, height, gaw id, IP in charge....
Brewer Station table: Brewerid, Station id and Date when Brewer was deployed in the Station.
What do you think about it?
Bentor
Most Users Ever Online: 29
Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 87
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 5
Topics: 1
Posts: 1
Newest Members:
RonaldMar, ttech, sidalamine, test3, test2, test, LucasI, TaylorP, PinheiroO, ThompsLAdministrators: brewermaster: 1, Webmaster: 0
