[CF-metadata] standard name proposal for CCMVal

From: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:21:02 +0000

Dear Jonathan,

On Friday 07 March 2008 13:58, you wrote:
> > I'm not aware of any usage of passive which is inconsistent with the
> > definition of `not active'.
>
> But you said yourself there are various aspects to being active, and maybe
> only some of them are negated in a particular case. Is that possible?
>
in what context are you asking about the possibility of other uses? Its a free
world, I guess people are allowed to develop other uses. I think your going
to have a hard time if you only want to use words which can never be used in
another context.

> > I can't see the relevance of the second part of your question. Are you
> > seriously suggesting that the method of initialising model variables
should
> > be included in the names?
>
> What I am trying to understand is whether there is a possibility of
ambiguity,
> that's all. Is it possible there could be more than one variable which might
be
> described as "passive ozone" in an atmos chem experiment? If so, "passive
> ozone" is not sufficiently informative. That's what I am asking about.

A new criterium to be judged by. What do you mean by more tyhan one variable?
An array with more than one element? It is possible that passive ozone would
not be a scalar but a multi-dimensional field. In fact, it is quite likely.
Is this a problem?

> (I'm
> not copying this to the list in order to limit traffic.) Jonathan
>
You could limit traffic by restricting yourself to rational criticicm. That
would cut the volume quite a lot,

cheers,
Martin

>
Received on Fri Mar 07 2008 - 07:21:02 GMT