Channel naming convention

[martin-rdz]

Can we please come up with an guideline on channel naming for variables in programms and data?
At least to reduce the variaty a bit (532NR, NR_532t, 1064s, 532_cross, 355x, 532T)

Based on a brief exchange with @HolgerPollyNet and @ulysses78 we discussed something like:

Definition

{wavelength}{RR}_{total|cross|parallel}_{NR|FR}

• RR (rotational raman) only if applicaple, otherwise omit.
• Theoretically total and FR can also be omitted.
• Vibrational raman channels are denoted as they are (407, not 355H2OVR)

Application Examples

• 532_total_FR
• 532_cross_NR (not DFOV)
• 1064RR (not 1058)

Some reasoning behind

• Lower dash instead of Minus to be used in programming code
• near-range and far-range is more correct than near-field, which has a wider field of view
• 1064RR makes more sense than 1058, according to Holger, otherwise it would also be 530

Open questions

• Abbreviate total, cross, parallel to t, c, p?
• Cross could also be x or s?
• Omit t, FR?

Any thoughts or opinions?
-Martin

[cristoferjimenez]

Sounds good to me

[ulysses78]

Here is the full list:

• 355_total_FR
• 355_cross_FR
• 355_parallel_FR
• 355_total_NR
• 355_total_RR
• 387_total_FR
• 387_total_NR
• 407_total_FR
• 407_total_NR
• 532_total_FR
• 532_cross_FR
• 532_parallel_FR
• 532_total_NR
• 532_cross_NR
• 532_cross_parallel
• 532_total_RR
• 607_total_FR
• 607_total_NR
• 1064_total_FR
• 1064_cross_FR
• 1064_parallel_FR
• 1064_total_NR
• 1064_total_RR

Did I forgot something, or does any entry does not make sense (e.g. total_RR or 387_total_NR)? I would say not to use the abbrevation c,p,t because in this way we can use the whole entry as a title e.g. for plotting.

[HolgerPollyNet]

I have to say, that I prefer short names, i.e. t instead of total, c for cross etc. but I can survive with everything ;-). What about the DFOV depol channel? It could be classified as near-range depol, but in fact its a different telescope.
How to handle fluorescence in future?

My proposal :
Here is the full list:
wavelength_method_telescope

355_total_FR ok
355_cross_FR ok 
355_parallel_FR ok 
355_total_NR ok
355_total_RR --> 355_RR_NR + 355_RR+FR
387_total_FR --> 387_FR
387_total_NR --> 387_NR
407_total_FR --> 407_FR
407_total_NR --> 407_NR
532_total_FR ok
532_cross_FR ok
532_parallel_FR ok 
532_total_NR ok
532_cross_NR ok -_> currently not extisting, or do we consider the DFOV this channel 
532_cross_parallel --> is in fact a total channel ;-) --> delete
532_total_RR --> 532_RR_FR + NR
607_total_FR--> 607_FR
607_total_NR--> 607_NR
1064_total_FR
1064_cross_FR
1064_parallel_FR --> not yet exiisting
1064_total_NR
1064_total_RR--> not existent--> 1064_RR_FR
**466_FR--> fluorescence
355_DFOV
532_DFOV
1064_DFOV**

What about omitting total?
Something else?

[Moritz-TROPOS]

Hi,
Sorry, probably, I haven't submit my comment which I wrote this morning.
532_cross_parallel does not make sense.
1064_total_RR and 355_total_RR - as the last two letters usually correspond to NR or FR, it is confusing to read RR at this point (which range might it be?) --> so maybe we should go to 1058_total_FR instead as we have done with the other wavelengths (387 and 607).
Or annother idea: We may use total/cross/parallel only for the elastic channels and use instead "Raman" or "fluorescence" for the other channels, like 607_Raman_FR and 466_fluorescence_FR. And then we could also use 1064_Raman_FR (or 1064_rotRaman_FR). We won't detect cross and parallel other than for elastic channels and so the information "total" is not really necessary for Raman channels.

[martin-rdz]

The DFOV issue would with wavelength_method_telescope be
532_cross_DFOV
i.e. the three telescopes are denoted FR, NR, DFOV
or in the nomenclature above {wavelength}_{total|cross|parallel|rotraman}_{NR|FR|DFOV}.

Also I want to highlight the option to omit tags if they are clear.
I.e. 532_total_NR can be abbreviated to 532_NR
And 387_total_FR can also be abbreviated with 387_FR

Finally a thought about maximum brevity discussion, if the specification is clear, one could also replace a c with cross when doing the labels, but the order in the strung must be clear.

[ulysses78]

The "532_cross_parallel" was a copy paste typo ;-)

[ulysses78]

One question concerning the DFOV... the present DFOV uses a near-range mirror. Will there be a DFOV for the far-range in the future as well?
The nomenclature above {wavelength}_{total|cross|parallel|rotraman}_{NR|FR|DFOV} sounds good to me. But if we use this one, then we should keep the "total" - to have a well defined and structured nomenclature. In this way the grepping is much easier, when used inside the coding.

[ulysses78]

Does anyone know, if it affects the processing chain, if we just change the channel labels within the polly-config files?

[HolgerPollyNet]

Does anyone know, if it affects the processing chain, if we just change the channel labels within the polly-config files?

Is this related to this topic or a general question?

[ulysses78]

It is related to this topic.