[CF-metadata] standard name proposal for CCMVal

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:47:42 +0000

Dear Martin

> As for the standard name the quantity should still be called the same as "o
zone". Our model simulations always include some element of simplification and I
 believe it is more important to recognize that the standard_name variable refle
cts "something that has a behaviour which in many respects is similar to ozone"
than to nail down every detail as to why my ozone is different from yours.

You don't have to nail down *every* detail, but you do have to specify it in
a way that makes it clear whether it is comparable with someone else's. If you
just call it "passive ozone" but there is a range of different things that
"passive" could mean, the name is no use as a standard name; standard names
indicate whether quantities from different datasets are "the same thing"
which could be compared. But I agree that at some level you don't specify,
where you have decided that further details are not relevant to comparability.
It does depend on the application.

Is the kind of passive ozone used by CCMVal the only kind that anyone ever
uses in practice? In that case the picture is clearer.

Cheers

Jonathan
Received on Fri Mar 07 2008 - 04:47:42 GMT