Dear Jonathan and Stephan,
>Recognising that a common concept would be valuable to combine the
constituent
>name and the concept description implies, I think, that it is more
convenient
>to keep them together.
Sorry, but I don't agree and I think this is not what you told me before.
See email:
(
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2007/001654.html)
The important part starts with 'Alison's analysis' and ends with
'outside the netCDF file.'
Or did I misunderstood you 2007 ?
>Although I agree that in principle the current method
>could lead to thousands of names, so far the number of chemical names
is not
>large and causes no problems.
I think the number of chemical names is very large and we are at the
beginning.
Stephen gives us an estimation. 4500 species. Thank you for that.
> So while I agree we should keep possible
>solutions in mind, I do not think we need to solve the problem until it
really
>threatens us.
This looks very dangerous to me. When is the point of no return ?
Can we reverse the standard names ?
How many standard names will blow up the system? I think no one is able
to give a number.
> I feel we should continue with the present approach, which is
>more convenient.
At this point we can't do anything else, because we have no agreement,
but we
should work on it.
We have Martina's list. Sorry, but I can't say yes to this. The
procedure is to accept
standard names which are really used. If we open the CF for translation
to other
standardization projects we need a new procedure.
>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:
I don't agree. This is the beginning see
(
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/CF_Standard_Names_-_Construction_of_Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Aerosol_Terms)
with the combination of 4500 species.
>* Thinking about how they should be constructed. That is usually the
bottleneck
>because it is hard work, and not many brains are available.
The possible combination is hard work too.
>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
Yes !
>so that developers and models talk a common language.
That is the problem. I think they will never talk a common language. But
we can give help to translate it.
I have some problems with the chemical units. Are ug=10-6g and ppm allowed ?
Dear Steve,
I am not well versed in ontology. Could you give me more information
about the meeting ?
Best whishes
Heinke
Received on Tue Oct 14 2008 - 01:40:29 BST
