[CF-metadata] CF-metadata Digest, Vol 58, Issue 4: CCMVAL request

From: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:35:44 +0000

We would certainly be happy to include IUPAC names in the definitions. I think
there is a strong case to be made that names like CFC11 are common usage and
so should be preferred. They are also an accepted standard, though not as
comprehensive as the IUPAC standard.

cheers,
Martin

PS: I'll be away next week, so will not be able to respond to further comments
until returning on Feb. 5th.

On Friday 25 January 2008 12:16, cf-metadata-request at cgd.ucar.edu wrote:
> 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 - 10:35:44 GMT