[CF-metadata] species as species in chemical and aerosol?names - "mercury"

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:56:22 +0000

Dear Christiane, Roy, Steve and Ian

> 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 certainly support explicitness and don't have a problem with long standard
name in general. But this name raises two questions with me:

* How can a mass flux be expressed as a mass? Of course, I know what it means,
but it does cause a temporary upset. I don't have that problem if it just says
"expressed_as", not "expressed_as_mass_of".

* Why is "dry aerosol" omitted the second time? Is the expressed_as really
needed at all in this kind of case? I mean, could particulate_organic_matter_
dry_aerosol be expressed as anything other than particulate_organic_matter_dry_
aerosol? What alternatives are there? This may be a different situation from
carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_carbon or expressed_as_carbon_dioxide, when there
is an obvious ambiguity.

* I proposed expressed_as_such (so carbon_dioxide_expressed_as_such) to avoid
the repetition of a lengthy name of a substance, and because for a human (for
this human, anyway) it is more efficient to be told immediately that two things
are the same than to compare two long strings to see whether they are
identical. That is, I think X_expressed_as_such is easier to understand than
X_expressed_as_X if X is a long string. But maybe others find it cryptic.

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Wed Nov 15 2006 - 01:56:22 GMT