[CF-metadata] accessory parameters

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:43:06 +0000

Dear Roy

I see, thanks for that explanation. I agree this needs resolution, and in fact
it's an aspect of the general problem of giving names to things which are more
related to measurements and observational techniques, rather than geophysical
parameters which can be regarded as comparable across different methods of
observation and simulation - would you agree? The latter was the original
purpose of standard names. Nonetheless we already have standard names for
quantities that exist only in models and couldn't be measured because they
are abstractions or artefacts. It is therefore not inconsistent to have names
for quantities which can be measured but aren't parameters of the "real world"
i.e. they belong to the measurement, rather than being something measured.

Are these kinds of quantities for the ocean systematically named in your
dictionary?

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Fri Feb 24 2006 - 06:43:06 GMT