[CF-metadata] Chaotic Proposed Standard Name

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:01:41 +0100

Dear Mike

I have no doubt that your interest in Lyapunov exponents is genuine and
useful! However I think we have to recall that the main purpose of standard
name is so that quantities can be identified in a way which will allow users
of data from different sources to know which quantities correspond. This is
a practical need, which generally clarifies which quantities need names and
how specific they have to be. That motivated the definition of standard names
for the IPCC AR4 database, CFMIP, OTS, and the various oceanographic names
we have recently been discussing. They are of common interest to various
people. If there is an application where you and someone else both have an
interest in Lyapunov exponents, it would be clearer how we should name
them for that purpose. On the other hand, if it is data which (at present)
only you are looking at, you could distinguish the quantities using long_names
or some other non-standardised attribute. This also allows you the flexibility
to change the naming convention as research develops. Standard names could be
defined later, as soon as the need arises for them.

What do you think about this "policy" issue?

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Thu Oct 13 2005 - 02:01:41 BST