[CF-metadata] standard name proposal for CCMVal

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:09:57 +0000

Dear Martin

> I'd like to respond to Jonathan's suggestion that the CCMVal names should use
> atmosphere_moles_of_X instead of the proposed atmosphere_X_mole_burden.
> It is not clear to me that atmosphere_moles_of_X is clearer in any way. There
> is nothing in the name which says it is not the mole_fraction.

> ... they could just have easily used "moles of X in the atmosphere",

To me, atmosphere_moles_of_X means moles_of_X_in_atmosphere - doesn't it
to you? I wouldn't understand atmosphere_moles_of_X to mean mole fraction.
I think moles_of_X_in_atmosphere would be perfectly clear. We could use that,
although it is a different kind of construction from other standard names.
However, clarity is the most important objective.

> but given that they have I think there is a strong argument for following
> their example (though using atmosphere instead of atmospheric for consistency
> with existing practice in the standard name list),

Using existing terminology is a strong argument, I agree, but clarity is even
more important, I think. Would moles_of_X_in_atmosphere be more self-
explanatory than atmosphere_mole_burden_of_X?

Cheers

Jonathan
Received on Fri Feb 22 2008 - 03:09:57 GMT