[CF-metadata] what standard names are for

From: Bryan Lawrence <b.n.lawrence>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 07:40:38 +0100

On Tuesday 08 April 2008 22:30:32 John Graybeal wrote:
> Some observations:
>
> A term that is accepted in a science domain, but is likely to conflict with
> understood meaning in another science domain or in a non-scientific
> context, probably should not be accepted on the 'current usage trumps
> future usage' principle. Foreseeable areas of likely confusion should be
> avoided.

I don't disagree with that, where the future usage is predictable. But if 'ts
just possible (and not probable) then I would.

> Further, areas of likely confusion should not be addressed on the basis of
> "the term name connotes something else, but at least the definition is
> clear." A false connotation is harmful to use of the vocabulary.

I don't disagree with that, but removing clarity from the primary usage
doesn't add value either.

> At the same time, if a term does become ambiguous due to additional,
> overlaid, or replaced meanings, a synonym could be added that could
> eventually supplant the original use. It is important to have this option,
> so we're not totally locked in to outdated terms.

One of the reasons why I'd rather have opaque identifiers! Then the primary
identifier is immutable, and one can have evolution of appropriate terms.
(But, to anticipate Jonathan, opaque identifiers without easily usable
resolvers are useless).

> If a particular name is confusing because its meaning is opaque to the lay
> data management community, that is not as big an issue. It is then
> essentially a code to those outsiders, to be looked up if necessary.
> Whether advanced or localized scientific usage should be promoted into wide
> usage (thereby becoming less code-like), or eschewed in favor of more
> generally understandable terms, is the typical 'mindshare' tradeoff.

For whom do we write cf-netcdf files? In most cases for ourselves and our
existing community. I would argue that much of the effort to make CF names
self-describing beyond the primary user community is mixing up different
classes of the metadata taxonomy. I can elaborate on that add nauseum at a
later date.

> A specific reaction, then, from someone who is an outsider to the community
> and the science in question:
>
> The term 'sea_foundation_temperature' bugs me, because it appears to mean
> something (the foundation of the sea) that it does not actually mean, and
> that someday may be important in its own right.

Now that's an important point.

> Suggestion:
>
> On the other hand, the term 'sea_surface_foundation_temperature' is totally
> transparent in that regard -- I understand that is not the foundation of
> the sea, and even though I don't know exactly what it is, I can look it up.
> It's even clearer to me than
> sea_surface_temperature_at_diurnal_thermocline_base, for whatever that's
> worth.

I agree, it's more clear to me.

> Interestingly, I don't believe sea_surface_foundation_temperature has been
> suggested in this thread, at least in its recent incarnation.

Would it be acceptable to the primary user community?

Bryan
Received on Wed Apr 09 2008 - 00:40:38 BST