Hi Jonathan
I think in practice there are upwards of half a dozen MIPS nearly upon us, nearly all of them have new physical earth/system type parameterisation, ranging from chemistry to carbon, from land to sea and cloud. I don't think we can sustain the current level
of examination with everything going into a flat name space. If on the other hand, the standard name is in common, but with many differences
expressed in a variable, and a common concept to link thmem, then it is feasible.
Bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu on behalf of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: Fri 10/10/2008 10:55
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] CF standard names for chemical constituents?
Dear Bryan
> The deluge is almost upon us. I think leaving it to the last minute to have a solution in place is going to be unworkable.
What is the source of the threatening deluge? The ones from Martina, for
instance, don't look to be a serious problem to me. There are two issues for
stdnames:
* Thinking about how they should be constructed. That is usually the bottleneck
because it is hard work, and not many brains are available.
* The number of names to be added. That is not a bottleneck in human time, if
they are systematic, but presents problems of how to manage the table.
Cheers
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Scanned by iCritical for STFC.
Received on Fri Oct 10 2008 - 03:58:20 BST
