search

WCRP-CORDEX / cordex-cmip6-cv

Controlled Vocabulary (CV) for use in CORDEX
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
1 stars 7 forks source link

Inconsistent `driving_source_id` entry for ERA5 #31

Closed jesusff closed 11 months ago

jesusff commented 12 months ago

ERA5 has different sub-entries as compared to the rest of driving_source_ids (driving_experiment_id instead of driving-source):

https://github.com/WCRP-CORDEX/cordex-cmip6-cv/blob/ea7a992717938321a5918ecec1ed8149af0eb161/CORDEX-CMIP6_driving_source_id.json#L932-L948

Not sure if this is on purpose and handled somewhere else.

Also, according to the general rule and the example in the SOD of the archiving specs, the driving_institution_id (ECMWF) should be dropped from the driving_source_id (just read ERA5, instead of ECMWF-ERA5)

gnikulin commented 12 months ago

A reanalysis is always a special case and here there is some mix of the old CORDEX-CMIP5 standards (ECMWF-ERA5) and new CORDEX-CMIP6 (ERA5) ones, I don't think this is on purpose. There is no driving_source for ERA5 and it can be simply an empty element.

In general driving_source defined in CMIP6 is not used in CORDEX at all, may be can be dropped off ?

larsbuntemeyer commented 12 months ago

In general driving_source defined in CMIP6 is not used in CORDEX at all, may be can be dropped off ?

I kept the whold driving_source attribute from CMIP6 models since cmor would add it automaticaly (although it's not a required attribute) but nice to have. However, it's just additional meta data.

(ECMWF) should be dropped from the driving_source_id (just read ERA5, instead of ECMWF-ERA5)

Agreed, this was just a placeholder from the beginning although it seemed to be the case for ECMWF models to add the institution in the source_id, e.g., https://github.com/PCMDI/cmip6-cmor-tables/blob/main/Tables/CMIP6_CV.json#L1469-L1531. But i would be fine with sticking to the convention and call it simply ERA5.