Hi Jonathan and Sue,
I was also thinking that "parameter" by itself was too generic. Maybe a
more specific version, e.g., standard_name_parameters, would work?
I agree with using a "keyword: value" format. Since the keywords are
standard_name specific I think it would be best to include them in the
standard name table. To make it easy for a machine to identify the valid
keywords for a standard name I'd propose that the xml schema be extended by
adding a <parameters> element to contain a whitespace separated list of
parameter names, and that the meaning of any parameters be contained in the
<description> element.
Brian
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 04:36:46PM +0100, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Sue
>
> > Just wanted to point out that some other communities use the word
> > 'parameter' to mean variable, so it could cause confusion.
>
> Good point - alternative suggestions?
>
> > Also, Jonathan, when you say "with the standard_name definitions specifying
> > what keywords and values are permitted." does this mean the permitted
> > keywords/values appear in the definition text? If so, it would be better to
> > have this annotated in a more automatically available way.
>
> I supposed that the definition text would probably have links to pages with
> permitted sets of values if these are keywords rather than numeric. However
> I agree we could also think about how to include information about the possible
> "parameters" in the standard name table itself.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Fri Oct 29 2004 - 10:40:51 BST
