[CF-metadata] CF standard names for chemical constituents?

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:20:12 +0100

Dear Bryan

If there are large systematic expansions of the namespace, like lots of
chemical species, then I agree that it may be better to put some aspects of
it into dimensions, like we have done with land-surface, as Heinke said. This
is also suggested if the data comes from models that actually do treat that
aspect (such as the chemical species or the land-surface type) as a dimension.
Of course we have already done that with other aspects of metadata such as
cell_methods. So far it hasn't been necessary with chemical species, but I
agree it may become necessary.

I'm very unhappy with the idea of splitting up the namespace into areas
which develop separately. We have discussed this before. I think that if we
do that, it is inevitable that names in different areas will become
inconsistent and there will be duplication, and standard names will no longer
be as useful as they are now. One of the reasons they are useful is that they
have enough information to be used in an interdisciplinary way. I would say
that in Earth system models including more components, it will become even
more important to have a common standard namespace for all the components so
that developers and models talk a common language. So I think we should keep
the same namespace but encourage people with different expertise to contribute
to the development of standard names, as has been happening with the atmosphere
chemistry and aerosol projects in a very encouraging way.

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Fri Oct 10 2008 - 06:20:12 BST