[CF-metadata] what standard names are for

From: Bryan Lawrence <b.n.lawrence>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 07:34:02 +0100

Hi Folks

...
> > 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 users).
...

> I suppose it does depend on what you mean by "reasonable" :-).

The devil is in the detail. And John's reply addresses that. I'll come back to
John's reply.

> I agree that
> what is required now is a more important consideration than future needs;
> yes, that is one of our principles. But another one is that CF metadata
> should be self-describing. I think that standard names are something
> between technical terms, and the definitions of those terms. I don't think
> it is sufficient for a term to be in use for it to be adopted as a standard
> name, even if it does not conflict, because it may not be self-explanatory
> to the wider community of people who might use the dataset. Of course, the
> users could always look up the definitions, but they might not know where
> to find them, or they might be lazy. We should minimise the need to look
> things up. That's a reason for not using codes (like GRIB codes), that
> likewise depend on external definitions in order to be understood.

I don't buy the argument that CF is self-describing. CF metafiles + the
conventions document + software that can interpret the convention and the
file lead to something that is "self-describing". If I can write software
that pulls out standard names, I can write software that pulls the definition
out as an option at the same time. Not only can. Should.

I just think the argument that all short strings names of properties can be
fully self-describing to all communities is bound to be false. Otherwise, in
what way do the definitions add value?

(But John has some cogent arguments, so I'll reply to them next).

Cheers
Bryan
Received on Wed Apr 09 2008 - 00:34:02 BST