-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Standardise Metric Naming #743
Comments
I think there might be a confusion when using "absolute" and "total". The word "relative" gives a hint that the cover will be a fraction of something, but it doesn't say "relative to what". Since we have cover relative to the habitable area and relative to the total area, what do you think about |
I agree with including "habitable" in the name. |
I agree with Arlo, both would be considered relative just to a different reference. The other part to consider is resolution, from my use of adria so far it seems to use total_cover when there is one value per scenario while the other two are used for one value per location (so hundreds of timeseries per scenario). So, the question here is, do we use the same names independent of the resolution of should we have differences i.e. |
You should be able to use any metric summarised by scenario or location. Less supported are the functional group-based metrics. |
Further to the above, the metrics are documented (although how it's presented needs work) |
Coral Cover metric naming should be standard across ADRIA.
absolute_cover
: coral cover in absolute units, e.g., m^2relative_cover
: coral cover relative to habitable area. Ideally in [0, 1]total_cover
: coral cover relative to total reef area including uninhabitable. Ideally in [0, 1]Interfaces loading external data sets should make sure the naming is assigned to the correct data and that any unit conversions are applied.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: