I wasn't sure why the term becomes 'water_body_water_temperature' and not just 'water_body_temperature'.
The analogous term sea_water_temperature seems to be redundant as to the medium, a 'sea' always being water. I assumed this just developed from common usage, people just called it 'sea water' (distinguishes from sea salt, sea life, but in this context 'sea_temperature' would have carried the semantic content) and therefore so did CF.
Are we running into an issue because these terms are being used both for the medium, and for a position description (in an X, Y location that is over/in/under a sea)? So you might have 'water_body_air_temperature'?
John
At 10:34 AM +0100 3/13/08, Heinke Hoeck wrote:
> > Maybe the solution to our problem with "sea" is to use the rather long, but
>> explicit, "sea/lake/river" as a replacement for "sea" is standard names.
>>
>We would prefere Roy's proposal (25.2) to say water_body. In the
>standard name description this could be explained:
>water_body means sea, lake and river.
At 9:52 AM +0000 3/13/08, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>I feel that your explicit description is clearer; water_body is less obvious
>to me. For instance, to replace the current standard_name
> sea_water_temperature
>the choice is between
> lake/river/sea_water_temperature (I put them in alphabetical order)
>or
> water_body_water_temperature
>The former appears clearer to me, and is only slightly longer. I wonder what
>other people think. Of course, there is also the option (assumed implicitly
>up to now) to define "sea" to mean lake/river/sea, but I think that general
>opinion is less happy with that.
--
----------
John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org> -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Initiative: http://marinemetadata.org || Shore Side Data System: http://www.mbari.org/ssds
Received on Thu Mar 13 2008 - 08:43:18 GMT
