Hello Jonathan,
In your example:
>
> float temperature(realization,time,lat,lon):
> temperature:coordinates = 'time lat lon metadata1' ;
> char metadata1(realization,len100):
> metadata1:standard_name="institution"; // for instance
> metadata1:external_vocabulary = http://wmo.foo.int/identifierY
>
> I proposed that the new standard names would be the same as the new or
> existing global and local attributes that we use for these purposes
> (such as institution).
>
I was wondering do we need _both_ the standard_name and the
external_vocabulary? For instance is there a risk of redundancy? I
think the potential for redundancy arises if an application can infer
the kind of standard name type quantity the vocabulary refers to (either
by knowing it hard coded, or through vocab URL naming conventions)? The
main reason I can think of for including both is if an application has
some idea of what to do with 'institution' without having to know what
the individual names in the vocab mean (e.g. use it to slice an
ensemble), but doesn't necessarily know that
http://wmo.foo.int/identifierY is an institution type label.
Something else I'm not so clear on is can the providers of a vocabulary
mix the kind of things they are naming within a vocab list (e.g. have a
single vocab containing both 'source' and 'institution'?) If the vocabs
are being maintained externally I don't think you can control whether
this happens or not. (Which I think implies that you need both
standard_name and external_vocabulary for safety's sake).
I'm not sure I've added anything here - but figured it was worth posting
to try and get some clarification.
Jamie
Received on Wed Nov 15 2006 - 02:56:30 GMT
