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

From: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:47:12 +0000

Dear Jonathan,
>
> 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.

I agree that clarity is important. As I said before, I don't think your
proposal is clearer. Perhaps you could say why you think it is clearer?

>
> > 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.

Yes

> Would moles_of_X_in_atmosphere be more self-
> explanatory than atmosphere_mole_burden_of_X?
>

I don't think so -- sorry. What is your reasoning?
 
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan

cheers,
Martin
Received on Fri Feb 22 2008 - 05:47:12 GMT