[CF-metadata] standard name proposal for CCMVal

From: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:11:30 +0000

Dear Jonathan,

thanks, we'll see if there are any other comments. But I don't think it is
fair to refer to the IPCC as a specialist community. I keep referring to the
usage there because it has gone through exhaustive review and is designed for
a wider audience than, for instance, articles in JGR which really are
targetted at a specialist community.

cheers,
Martin

>
>From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
>Subject: [CF-metadata] standard name proposal for CCMVal
>To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>Message-ID: <20080222135725.GA12861 at met.reading.ac.uk>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>Dear Martin

>There have been many questions like this in the past, and there's not a right
>answer to be discovered - it's just a judgement. I agreed with you about
>"burden" before anyway, as you know; I took it up again because we had not
>had that discussion on this email list and because "burden" was questioned
>again. On the one side is the usage in the specialist field, and on the other
>is what is most readily understood by non-specialists, which is important too
>because CF metadata is used across disciplines. CF stdnames are somewhere
>between terminology and definitions, I think. Terminology is convenient,
>while definitions are self-describing.

>Anyway, if the majority is for "burden" that's fine with me.

>Cheers

>Jonathan
Received on Fri Feb 22 2008 - 07:11:30 GMT