CWFMF weather specification

Purpose

In order to effectively communicate to/from/within the API, a standard for weather and/or FWI indices data needs to be developed.

Goals

Ideally, we can find a way to represent data that will:

be compatible with other systems, to whatever extent that is possible.
be the smallest representation that can accurately reflect all the attributes that need to be known about the data in order for it to be used by the CWFMF models and APIs.
account for either ensemble or deterministic data sources

Considerations

There are various tradeoffs that can be made for efficiency or accuracy of representation of the data. This is a list of things that were taken into consideration when creating the proposed specification.

GeoJSON

if at all possible, it makes sense to use a standard format
already defines standard crs and coordinate formats

Actual vs Forecast

just handled by specifying data source as observations?
- what about Actual observations vs Estimated observations, and if that's different on a per-value, per-index basis, or per-source basis?
  - decided to not worry about marking individual observations as estimates, because the 'model' for the observations would be something like 'Provincial Observations from XX', and it would use whatever they're saying is their official observation values

Different frequencies for different streams

different start and end times
different intervals
- different number of readings for same time period
  - feel like it makes the most sense to specify the interval and have a smaller array of data for larger intervals, instead of trying to get all streams to have the same interval and having to put a bunch of nulls or something to make the arrays the same size
  - RFC3339 seems to be required standard for date, date-time, and duration formats to work
    - "1 hour" is defined at "PT1H"
    - "1 day" is defined at "P1D"
  - some products have different frequencies depending on how far out the forecast is (e.g. NAEFS: 'Files are 3 hourly to 192, then 6 hourly to 384')
    - have to have some way to define intervals for ranges of time, or have the option of just listing timestamps instead?
    "naefs": { "name": "North American Ensemble Forecast System", "as_of": "2007-06-30T18:00:00Z", "interval": { "2007-06-30T18:00:00Z": "PT3H", "2007-07-08T18:00:00Z": "PT6H" }, "members": ["0", "1", "control"] }
    vs.
    "naefs": { "name": "North American Ensemble Forecast System", "as_of": "2007-06-30T18:00:00Z", "timestamps": [ "2007-06-30T18:00:00Z", "2007-06-30T21:00:00Z", "2007-07-01T00:00:00Z", ... "2007-07-08T09:00:00Z", "2007-07-08T12:00:00Z", "2007-07-08T15:00:00Z", "2007-07-08T18:00:00Z", "2007-07-09T00:00:00Z", "2007-07-09T06:00:00Z", "2007-07-09T12:00:00Z", ... ], "members": ["0", "1", "control"] }
    - probably better to define times similar to netcdf conventions so they aren't all strings?
    e.g.
    "time": {"units": "PT1H", "since": "2007-06-30T18:00:00Z"} "start": "2007-07-01T00:00:00Z", "end": "2007-07-16T18:00:00Z", ... "naefs": { "name": "North American Ensemble Forecast System", "as_of": "2007-06-30T18:00:00Z", "timestamps": [0, 3, 6, 9, 12, ..., 183, 186, 189, 192, 198, 204, 210, ..., 372, 378, 384], "members": ["0", "1", "control"] }
    - need to differentiate between source last update time (FeatureCollection['sources'][source]['as_of'] currently) and data period (FeatureCollection['start'] and FeatureCollection['end'] currently), so maybe:
    NOTE: FeatureCollection['time']['since'] (epoch time) could be completely independent of start/end time (e.g. could use '2000-01-01T00:00:00Z' as a reference)
    "time": {"units": "PT1H", "since": "2007-06-30T18:00:00Z"}
    NOTE: probably much easier for a human to read if start is a string and not an offset from epoch time
    "start": "2007-07-01T00:00:00Z", "end": "2007-07-16T18:00:00Z", ... "naefs": { "name": "North American Ensemble Forecast System",
    NOTE: again, much easier to read as a string than an offset from epoch. I don't think defining times in a source relative to the as_of time would be a good idea (i.e. if a time is hour 6, it should be hour 6 for every source) - although the counterpoint to that is that times for a model run are regularly referred to by their hour relative to when the model was run, and this would diverge from that standard)
    "as_of": "2007-06-30T18:00:00Z",
    NOTE: this would not start at 0, because the data starts 6 hours after the model run start
    "timestamps": [6, 9, 12, ..., 183, 186, 189, 192, 198, 204, 210, ..., 372, 378, 384], "members": ["0", "1", "control"] }
different sources may be up to date as of different times
Any values defined for FeatureCollection apply to any streams that they aren't defined specifically within?
- would be possible to have a value that's completely ignored, if set in FeatureCollection and each stream also defines it
  - either make it need to be defined either for every Feature, or for entire FeatureCollection and not individuals Features?

Indices

if units and height aren't provided, then we need defaults for certain indices?
- or whatever program is using the data needs to assume that it's for the correct units and height
- there needs to be some kind of consistency for this to make any sense
  - if different models expect the same data with different names, then this is kind of pointless
  - nice to make it generic, but seems like there needs to be some things already defined to ensure consistency
each source may be providing the closest point to the requested location
- do we want to list the actual location in the source data, and not just the location that the data is supposed to represent?
  - would be useful to provide distance from requested location as well then?

decided to allow indices to be defined only by name, and to predefine some indices by key

if user is defining index, then they must include enough information for it to be usable

we can predefine what values certain keys have to have, and then allow users to just use a bool for saying they're include

define in a way that fields are optional, so you can include specifics, but they have to match predefined values

e.g.

   "temp": {
       "title": "Temperature in Celcius at 2m required for FWI calculations",
       "oneOf": [
           {
               "const": "Temperature"
           },
           {
               "type": "object",
               "required": [
                   "name"
               ],
               "properties": {
                   "name": {
                       "const": "Temperature"
                   },
                   "units": {
                       "const": "C"
                   },
                   "height": {
                       "const": "2m"
                   }
               },
               "additionalProperties": false
           },
           {
               "const": true
           }
       ]
   },

this will allow temp to be defined either as true or Temperature to include to include it, or it can speficy other attributes, but they must match what has been pre-defined

hard to know when to stop when it comes to predefining things
- could use all the acronyms that fbp uses (cfb, csi, bfi, etc.), but is that too much?
I think pre-definitions can't be done in extensions, because indices.json is being referenced via composition, and it also requires other indices to be objects with a name, so you can't do the overrides for bool or const

Data streams

want to make things concise, but easy to use
- most likely use case is probably dealing with all indices of a single stream for a single point
  - with this spec, that would be done via Feature['sources'][source]
    - would be an array if deterministic, or dictionary if ensemble
  - alternatively, could want to get:
    - all data for a single model, for all points: FeatureCollection['features'][:]['data'][source]
    - all data for a single point Feature['data']
    - all values of a certain index, for all streams and points: FeatureCollection['features'][:]['data'][:][index] for deterministic, and FeatureCollection['features'][:]['data'][:][:][index] for ensemble
      - not a big fan of having to slice differently if it's an ensemble - should we just use an array or dictionary in both instances?
are tied to a specific point, so put them as part of Feature['properties']
need a way to provide metadata about indices if they were calculated or interpolated?
- FeatureCollection['indices'][index]['postprocessing']?

indices names are repeated for every stream

could just use an array and knowing the index values from the indices defined for the FeatureCollection

e.g.:

{
   "temp": [-3.6, -3.4, -3.9, -5.5, -5.8, -6.8, -7.3, -7.6, -8.3, -9.6, -11.0, -11.1],
   "rh": [89, 88, 87, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 91, 90, 90, 90],
   "ws": [19.9, 18.2, 16.7, 16.5, 17.6, 16.9, 15.1, 15.6, 16.2, 15.5, 14.8, 14.4],
   "wd": [347, 349, 347, 340, 330, 329, 327, 321, 318, 317, 317, 310],
   "prec": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.25, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0]
}

vs.

[
   [-3.6, -3.4, -3.9, -5.5, -5.8, -6.8, -7.3, -7.6, -8.3, -9.6, -11.0, -11.1],
   [89, 88, 87, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 91, 90, 90, 90],
   [19.9, 18.2, 16.7, 16.5, 17.6, 16.9, 15.1, 15.6, 16.2, 15.5, 14.8, 14.4],
   [347, 349, 347, 340, 330, 329, 327, 321, 318, 317, 317, 310],
   [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.25, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0]
]

this seems clunky when there's an index without data for a certain source, and you need to use null in the array at that index

using dictionary for ensembles, but could also define keys in FeatureCollection['sources'][source]['members'] and just use an array

e.g.

{
   ...
   "features": [
       {
           ...
           "properties": {
               ...
               "data": {
                   "naefs": {
                       "0": {...},
                       "1": {...},
                       "control": {...}
                   }
                   ...
               }
               ...
           }
       }
       ...
   ]
}

vs.

{
   ...
   "features": [
       {
           ...
           "properties": {
               ...
               "data": {
                   "naefs": [
                       {...},
                       {...},
                       {...}
                   ]
                   ...
               }
               ...
           }
       }
       ...
   ]
   ...
   "sources": {
       "naefs": {
           "members": ["0", "1", "control"]
       }
   }
}

FWI Indices

could be calculated already, or initial values given
- error if initial and calculated values provided?
As far as caclulcating them, interpolation/extrapolation type wouldn't be defined here - if the program wants to increase the reading interval, geographically interpolate, or use a specific calculation method, then that's up to it

Missing Data

seems like null is used to specify a missing value

Name		Name	Last commit message	Last commit date
Latest commit History 41 Commits
example_usage		example_usage
examples		examples
schemas		schemas
README.md		README.md

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Repository files navigation

CWFMF weather specification

Purpose

Goals

Considerations

GeoJSON

Actual vs Forecast

Different frequencies for different streams

NOTE: `FeatureCollection['time']['since']` (epoch time) could be completely independent of start/end time (e.g. could use '2000-01-01T00:00:00Z' as a reference)

NOTE: probably much easier for a human to read if `start` is a string and not an offset from epoch time

NOTE: this would not start at 0, because the data starts 6 hours after the model run start

Indices

Data streams

FWI Indices

Missing Data

About

Releases

Packages

Languages

CWFMF/wx_specification

Folders and files

Latest commit

History

Repository files navigation

CWFMF weather specification

Purpose

Goals

Considerations

GeoJSON

Actual vs Forecast

Different frequencies for different streams

NOTE: FeatureCollection['time']['since'] (epoch time) could be completely independent of start/end time (e.g. could use '2000-01-01T00:00:00Z' as a reference)

NOTE: probably much easier for a human to read if start is a string and not an offset from epoch time

NOTE: this would not start at 0, because the data starts 6 hours after the model run start

Indices

Data streams

FWI Indices

Missing Data

About

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

Packages 0

Languages

NOTE: `FeatureCollection['time']['since']` (epoch time) could be completely independent of start/end time (e.g. could use '2000-01-01T00:00:00Z' as a reference)

NOTE: probably much easier for a human to read if `start` is a string and not an offset from epoch time

Packages