⇐ ⇒

[CF-metadata] CF standard names for chemical constituents and aerosols

From: Heinke Hoeck <heinke.hoeck>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:12:28 +0200

Dear Jonathan,
> there
> is the problem of delays when requests are made for new standard names. This
> problem is caused by the intellectual difficulties of working out what the
> concepts are and what the names for them should be.
>
I agree and I hope that common concept will help us with the naming.
> The lists of what can fill the gaps could, as has been suggested, be maintained by
> groups with the relevant expertise.
>
Yes.
> The second issue is more difficult. As I have argued before, I do not think it
> can be helped by allowing projects to develop independent tables if we want to
> use standard names to compare data from different sources. That is one of the
> main reasons they are useful, I think, as Seth says too, and it's why they are
> called "standard". If there were many tables, of course it would become
> easier to add new names within projects, but interoperability would be lost
> among projects. Interoperability can be maintained by across tables by
> mappings (ontologies) but that is hard work. With more tables it would be
> harder work. Who would do it? Dividing up the standard name table would
> compound the intellectual difficulty, rather than easing the problem.
>
CF should have a list of species with one name for every species. For
example we use
Christine's list. The mapping of one species name for example ozone to
O3 should be done
by the groups with the relevant expertise.
The naming of the species in the CF list is not so important because we
can use the mapping.
For comparison of the data I would prefer the CF species list but it is
not obligate.
> So why is agreement of new standard names slow? I think it is because it is
> difficult. It is not principally because we are arguing about syntax (though
> it is partly), but because we are working out what we actually mean, and how
> to describe it in ways consistent with other quantities we have defined. That
> is, I think the slowness is mostly about the the definition, not about the
> meaningful identifier, in Bryan's terms.
Yes, I agree. In the models we have different formulas for the same
parameter.
What is the criteria for comparability.
Must the data user know the formula or is it enough to retrieve the same
standard name and variables.
That makes it very difficult. And I don't talk about the comparability
of model data, measured data
and satellite data.

Best wishes
Heinke

>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
Received on Wed Oct 22 2008 - 03:12:28 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Sep 13 2022 - 23:02:40 BST

⇐ ⇒