[CF-metadata] standard name proposal for CCMVal

From: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:08:39 +0000

The question was why not use passive to mean not active? It is not a
complicated concept.

Martin

On Friday 07 March 2008 12:20, you wrote:
> > What is wrong with using passive to mean not active?
>
> What's wrong is that "active" and "passive" can both mean different things
in
> different applications. Is passive is only ever used in atmos chem with
> precisely the meaning you gave (initialised from a real species,
subsequently
> transported like it but no other effects at all)? Jonathan
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 07 2008 - 06:08:39 GMT