Hi Christiane,
In my experience attempts at brevity when describing complexity results in misunderstandings. Your example:
surface_dry_deposition_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol
_expressed_as_mass_of_particulate_organic_matter
appeals to me because I instantly feel I have an understanding of the parameter that is being described, whereas with more compact syntax I find myself asking the 'What is meant by....?' question. I currently work with a 400-byte limit on full parameter discriptions accompanied by a 50-byte abbreviation. The abbreviation is only used in situations where there is an inflexible limit on display space and wherever possible techniques such as hover text are used to provide access to the full name.
Cheers, Roy.
>>> christiane.textor at gmx.de 11/14/2006 7:16 am >>>
Hi all,
Here is an explanation how the name was constructed:
surface_dry_deposition_mass_flux_of_mercury_expressed_as_mercury_dry_aerosol
substance (mercury_dry_aerosol)
process (surface dry deposition mass flux)
measure of mass (expressed as such, or expressed as mercury)
> surface_dry_deposition_mass_flux_of_mercury_via_dry_aerosol ?
'via' is not applicable here, because it refers to the deposition
pathway, not to the substance.
> replacing 'dry_aerosol' by 'in_dry_aerosol_phase' make the meaning
clearer?
This suggests, that the component of interest (here mercury) is only a
minor species within the total aerosol mass. This might apply to mercury
but not to other species, e.g. sulfate. Therefore I would like to keep
the name as it is.
> mercury_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_such
I like this suggestion, but from the HTAP exercise I realize that there
are still problems with the expression 'as_such'. I think it should
rather be expressed_as_mass_of_mercury
surface_dry_deposition_mass_flux_of_mercury_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_mass_of_mercury
another expample
surface_dry_deposition_mass_flux_of_all_nitrogen_oxides_expressed_as_mass_of_nitrogen
this can lead to very long names, e.g.
surface_dry_deposition_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_dry_aerosol
_expressed_as_mass_of_particulate_organic_matter
but is very clear. What do you think?
Christiane
>
> yours,
> Ian
>
> Roy Lowry wrote:
>> Might replacing 'dry_aerosol' by 'in_dry_aerosol_phase' make the meaning clearer?
>>
>> Roy.
>>
>>
>>>>> Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> 11/11/2006 2:21 pm >>>
>>>>>
>> Dear Christiane
>>
>>
>>>> If I am interpreting the term "expressed_as" correctly, maybe this
>>>> should be:
>>>> surface_dry_deposition_mass_flux_of_mercury_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_mercury
>>>>
>>> when I wrote
>>> mercury_expressed_as_such_dry_aerosol I was referring to the total
>>> aerosol mass, not only the mercury contained in it. Is this unclear?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I find "expressed_as_such_dry_aerosol" to be unclear. Now I understand
>> what you mean, though. But could you not just say
>> mercury_dry_aerosol_expressed_as_such?
>> I suppose that "mercury dry aerosol" is the name of a substance, and then
>> "expressed_as_such" is saying that you are measuring the mass of that
>> substance, which contrasts with "expressed_as_mercury", when you are measuring
>> the mass of mercury it contains.
>>
>> I wonder if that makes sense to other people.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Jonathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>
>>
>>
>
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
Received on Tue Nov 14 2006 - 00:58:55 GMT
