[CF-metadata] Fwd: standard name proposal for CCMVal

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:36:03 +0000

Dear Christiane and Martin

> "As you say, IUPAC would be an alternative."
> I agree that the short names are much more convenient, but was told that
> IUPAC nomenclature is obligatory in CF.

I don't think we have decided IUPAC is obligatory. I did ask Christiane whether
IUPAC could be used during early discussions, and it turned out that IUPAC
names were generally OK. But we also have to be pragmatic, as when we
followed Christiane's proposal to give names to aerosol size classes. There
are certainly advantages in using IUPAC names: they are unambiguous and an
existing standard. However names like CFC11 could be accepted if the IUPAC
name were given in the definition, I should think, if those names are always
preferred to the IUPAC ones.

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Fri Jan 25 2008 - 04:36:03 GMT