hi Jonathan
I think we're straying too far (on this, and a number of fronts) into trying
to make the standard name a definition in it's own right. There is no
question in my mind that if a large community already uses a specific
vocabulary term, then as long as it is reasonable (in some sense to be
agreed) and doesn't CONFLICT with other usage, our default position should be
to use that vocabulary identifier, but make damn sure the definition
encompasses all possible users ... (as opposed to the name itself satisfying
all possible uesrs).
When I get time I'll make this argument with more detail on the common_concept
thread. Meanwhile, I would argue for sea_foundation_temperature on the fact
that usage should trump possible futures (which is one of the key tenets of
CF).
Cheers
Bryan
On Monday 07 April 2008 08:37:13 Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Alison
>
> > The only issue remaining to be resolved is the precise wording of the
> > name. There are currently two options on the table:
> > sea_surface_temperature_at_diurnal_thermocline_base and
> > sea_foundation_temperature.
> > ... It is true that "foundation" is a new term
> > to standard names, but actually so are "skin" and "subskin" so, all
> > things considered, I can't see any reason to treat this name
> > differently. Last, but not least, sea_foundation_temperature has the
> > advantage of using a term that is well recognized in the GHRSST
> > community. Jonathan, do you think this sounds reasonable?
>
> These arguments are certainly reasonable, but I am not convinced that is
> the right decision. I can see that this is a term that is in use in the
> GHRSST community (there are plenty of references to it on Google) but to
> someone outside that community I don't think "sea foundation temperature"
> would have an obvious meaning. You might guess it means at the bottom of
> the thermocline or at the bottom of the ocean, for instance. On the other
> hand, "skin" is a more widely used idea. It's more obvious where the "skin"
> of the sea is!
>
> I think sea_surface_temperature_at_diurnal_thermocline_base is a more
> obvious term that a larger number of people would understand. One of the
> Google references is to the book "Measuring the Oceans from Space" by Ian
> Stuart Robinson, who defines "foundation temperature" as the temperature at
> the base of any diurnal thermocline that may be present. If that's what it
> means to everyone who uses the term "foundation temperature", I think it is
> well worth the longer name for the sake of easier comprehension by users of
> data. But if no-one agrees with me, I'll abide by the majority decision.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Tue Apr 08 2008 - 04:09:52 BST
