Hi Jonathan,
I'd agree with you if I believed that it was perfectly obvious to everyone
that standard_name="area" implies area of the grid cells. The vastly more
probable scenario (in my opinion) is that the user looking for a standard
name for "area_of_X" doesn't find it, and decides that the generic "area"
is the only thing that works for him/her.
Yes, I think names like cell_area, cell_thickness and other names that
describe cell metrics will be needed.
Brian
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 04:34:02PM +0100, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Brian
>
> Maybe I'm being a bit too theoretical about this - but it appears to me that
> if we don't say "within the grid cell" for every quantity, why should we say
> it for area? I feel a bit uncomfortable about making an exception for grid
> metrics.
>
> On the other hand, I do agree with you in not liking to make generic quantities
> available as standard names. Do you think we should instead have standard names
> of e.g. cell_area and cell_thickness? We may indeed need to have standard names
> for lots of grid metrics to describe complicated grids.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Wed Oct 04 2006 - 09:46:57 BST
