If the names could be expressed in a hierarchy some of them could be
specialized ( different form creating an alias ). This will allow
preserving the current name and allowing to be more specific when
necessary.
- Luis
___
Luis Bermudez Ph.D.
Coastal Research Technical Manager
Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA)
bermudez at sura.org - Office: (202) 408-8211 Mobile: (267) 481-4939
1201 New York Ave. NW Suite 430, Washington DC 20005
On Feb 5, 2008, at 5:08 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>> I fear this is a hopeless quest, which is why I suggested defining
>> "sea" to
>> include lake and river in the context of CF standard names.
>
> A solution which would work, but I think would be ugly, would be to
> define
> aliases with "lake_water" and "river_water" for all names containing
> "sea_water" so they could be used with equivalent meaning. Thus, you
> could
> use "river_water" to describe properties of water in the Pacific
> Ocean, and
> "sea_water" for the Thames, and that could be confusing as well, but
> it would
> allow people to use "sea", "lake" and "river" when appropriate.
>
> This would possibly be an abuse of aliases, which we introduced to
> allow us
> to correct mistakes, in effect i.e. when we subsequently decided
> names were
> wrong in some way, so that data which used superseded names was
> still valid.
> The purpose of standard names is to be standard! To introduce synonyms
> undermines that aim. Hence I'm not sure if it's a good idea,
> although it would
> get round this problem. Any views?
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Tue Feb 05 2008 - 05:26:29 GMT
