Clearly with CF1.0 we are stuck with udunits.
However, it's worth thinking about the future. I wasn't involved when
the decision to be udunit compatible was made. Can anyone summarise the
benefits that requiring udunit conformance confer on the CF community?
Bryan
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 09:38 +0200, Christiane Textor wrote:
> Hi Egil,
>
> This is a good suggestion, however units like kgN/m2/s are not allowed
> in UDunits as far as I know.
>
> (It is not necessary to give additional information for mole fractions,
> it is only needed for masses.)
>
> Best regards,
> Christiane
>
>
> Egil St?ren a ?crit :
> > 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
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 - 03:17:27 BST
