Hi all,
I am following this discussion somewhat from the sideline, but with a
growing feeling of uneasiness. If this X_as_Y naming method is accepted,
then standard names will tend to grow very large. I also think this
method makes the distinction between physical quantities and units less
clear. As I see it, "X_as_Y" and "X_as_such" represents the same
physical quantity, but with different units. I strongly feel that the
"as_Y" part belongs to the units attribute. For example:
standard_name: mass_flux_of_NO2
units: moles N/m2/s
This will of course need some changes to CF regarding the units attribute.
Best regards,
Egil St?ren
met.no, Norway
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Roy
>
> Thanks. I note that when you say something is expressed in moles of nitrogen
> you mean moles of nitrogen atoms, to be precise.
>
>
>>Does the phrase 'expressed_as' do a better job?
>
>
> It does for me, yes. I interpreted X_as_Y as meaning X is what the number
> applies to, but it comes in the form of Y, "as" meaning "in form of" like
> "water as ice". By X_as_Y you and Christiane mean Y is what the number applies
> to, taking "as" to mean "expressed as". So it would be better to have
> expressed_as, I would say, or any neater alternative if someone has one to
> suggest.
>
> Is it going to be OK to have names like mass_flux_of_ammonium_expressed_as_such
> do you think? Is there a better way to say that?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
Received on Tue Oct 10 2006 - 01:32:31 BST
