Hello Jonathan,
In the process of implementing the Standard Name aliases in the phenomenon ontology I'm building I came across the following anomaly:
surface_downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air = surface_downwelling_shortwave_flux
surface_downwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clear_sky = surface_downwelling_shortwave_flux_assuming_clear_sky
surface_upwelling_longwave_flux_in_air = surface_upwelling_longwave_flux
surface_upwelling_longwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clear_sky = surface_upwelling_longwave_flux_assuming_clear_sky
surface_upwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air = surface_upwelling_shortwave_flux
surface_upwelling_shortwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clear_sky = surface_upwelling_shortwave_flux_assuming_clear_sky
BUT
surface_downwelling_longwave_flux_in_air = surface_downwelling_longwave_flux
surface_downwelling_longwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clear_sky = surface_downwelling_longwave_flux
>From the pattern, I would have expected to find a Standard Name 'surface_downwelling_longwave_flux_assuming_clear_sky', which doesn't appear to be there mapped to 'surface_downwelling_longwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clear_sky'. The reason I'm worried about this is that once I point an inference engine at the relationships I'm going to end up with the relationship:
surface_downwelling_longwave_flux_in_air = surface_downwelling_longwave_flux_in_air_assuming_clear_sky
which doesn't strike me as the intention. Should we set up the missing name and switch the alias link?
Cheers, Roy.
--
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 Mon Apr 16 2007 - 07:55:58 BST
