>The challenge with hydrocarbons is that different models can have different cut-offs for the minimum number of carbons in the group (e.g. all alkanes with N or more carbons), which make the results non-comparable.
>
>In the absence of a comprehensive ontology (which was proposed, but is not yet available as far as I know) I think the best solution was suggested
>by Martin Schultz in his email to the CF mailing list on 6 Aug 2007, ie something along the lines of:
>
> mixing_ratio_of_alkanes_with_at_least_three_c_atoms_in_air
> mixing_ratio_of_alkanes_with_at_least_four_c_atoms_in_air
> mixing_ratio_of_alkanes_with_at_least_five_c_atoms_in_air
> mixing_ratio_of_alkanes_with_at_least_six_c_atoms_in_air
>
>This is not a perfect solution, as Martin discussed in his email, but I think it is a fair compromise between accuracy and usability.
A very minor suggestion: for names that involve numbers, it seems best to use numerals rather than spelled-out numbers. It makes certain kinds of automation easier, and it causes an alphabetical sort to put the names in a sensible order.
Cheers,
--Seth
----
Seth McGinnis
Associate Scientist
ISSE / NCAR
----
Received on Thu Sep 25 2008 - 12:20:03 BST
