Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- kvalobs:kvoss:system:qc2:flag:analysis [2010-01-22 00:52:26]
paule
+++ kvalobs:kvoss:system:qc2:flag:analysis [2022-05-31 09:29:32] (current)
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
   * [[https://kvalobs.wiki.met.no/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=kvoss%3Asystem%3Aqc2%3Arequirements&cache=cache&media=kvoss:system:qc2:flags_in_qc2.ppt|Flags in Qc2]]
-==== Redistirbution of Accumulated Values ====
+==== Redistribution of Accumulated Values ====
 ^Controlflag Setting: |fd=7    |
@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
   * ftime is not yet included in the requirements for useinfo(3). This needs to be done
-  * In this particular example fhqc=7 "Korrigert manuelt" which must is a bug, since original value is missing (fhqc=5: "Interpolert manuelt" might have been an appropriate setting). So the misleading value useinfo(3)=1: "Original verdi er manuelt korrigert" is because of this mistake in fhqc.
+  * In this particular example fhqc=7 "Korrigert manuelt" which must be a bug, since original value is missing (fhqc=5: "Interpolert manuelt" might have been an appropriate setting). So the misleading value useinfo(3)=1: "Original verdi er manuelt korrigert" is because of this mistake in fhqc.
   * Currently for the operational configuration the condition set is "DO NOT OVERWRITE A VALUE ALREADY CORRECTED BY HQC". For development/testing this condition is sometimes relaxed.
@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
   * Reasons for "no" include: that elsewhere setting up the criteria for useinfo(3) will be that much harder - it is no longer enough to check controlinfo, we also need to know which control was performed last (we would have useino(3) = 4 or 2 depending on HQC was performed before or after QC2).
+  * Reasons for "yes": QC2 is objective and may be preferred to the subjective HQC, to get uniform results. At least some of the algorithms could be set up to overwrite the HQC results. Redistribution of accumulated precipitation is one of the candidates - at least for "old" data in Histkvalobs.
 **Scheduling**
@@ Line 242: / Line 244: @@
 |RR24 Redistribution |[1000001000007000] |[5896900000000000]|
 |RR24 Redistribution |[1140001000007000] |[5896900000000001]|
-|ftime from TAN TAX interpolation |[1000600100000000] [5033700000000001]|
+|ftime from TAN TAX interpolation |[1000600100000000] |[5033700000000001]|
 |ftime |[1000600200000000] |[5033700000000001]|
 |ftime |[1000600300000000] |[5033700000000001]|
@@ Line 262: / Line 264: @@
 |control (no Qc2) |[1000001000000000] |[9899900000000000]|
+Furthermore, here is an example of [[kvoss::system::qc2::flag::regression|Qc1 Regression tests]].
@@ Line 267: / Line 270: @@
 ===== Open Issues =====
-  - Shall src/lib/kvalobs/Qc2_kvDataFlag.cc be updated to include the Qc2 elements. This is part of the standard Qc1 software and this change would therefore require regression testing. Who is reposnsible for this decision and to carry out the Qc1 regression testing?
+  - Shall src/lib/kvalobs/Qc2_kvDataFlag.cc be updated to include the Qc2 elements. This is part of the standard Qc1 software and this change would therefore require regression testing. Who is reposnsible for this decision and to carry out the Qc1 regression testing? (//may be these results of some preliminary [[kvoss:system:qc2:flag:regression|regression tests]] are sufficient?// :-) Please comment! :-)
   - Use fw to record general information on Qc2 controls or keep reserved for weather analysis? See Slide 3 of  [[https://kvalobs.wiki.met.no/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=kvoss%3Asystem%3Aqc2%3Arequirements&cache=cache&media=kvoss:system:qc2:flags_in_qc2.ppt| Flags in Qc2]].
   - Given this overview of Qc2 control flagging is the specification for the corresponding useinfo in place ... what still needs to be done?