Dear Jonathan, Martin et al.,
sorry for my long silence. I want to finish the discussion about the
physical quantities of my proposal (1) and have a few remarks on the
discussion about the construction guideline for chemical species (2).
1. Jonathan concerning the physical quantities in my proposal
density_of_surface_area_of_X, m-1
instead of surface_area_density_of_X
is ok. My suggested name was obviously misunderstandable, which we
should avoid in our standard names.
In summary, am I right that we agreed on:
tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_due_to_respiration : kg.m-2.s-1
tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_X_in_air_due_to_chemical_gross_production
:
mol.m-3.s-1
tendency_of_mole_concentration_of_X_in_air_due_to_chemical_gross_destruction
:
mol.m-3.s-1
density_of_surface_area_of_X, m-1?
2. Martin/Jonathan concerning syntax definition for chemical quantities
> basically the "<physical_quantity>_of_X_in_<medium>_as_<identity>" level of Martina's
> proposal
Actually, for me the 'as_<identity>' was part of the constituent X, e.g.
methane or nmvoc_expressed_as_carbon. I placed the medium at the end and
suggested, e.g. mole_fraction_of_nmvoc_expressed_as_carbon_in_air and
mole_fraction_of_methane_in_air. I think that has advantages in the
automatic construction of CF standard names out of these two parts:
physical quantity and constituent.
Additionally, at the very end of the name there is another keyword
_due_to_<process>.
<physical_quantity>_of_X_in_<medium>_due_to_<process> where X can
include an 'as'.
Philip/Martin concerning A,G,X and units for chemical species:
> This is why I was trying to point out that CF doesn't need to keep
> separate lists for X, A, G, or any other set of species. We will only
> need a single list of species: X.
Where is the information then for a physical quantity for an aerosol
that only part of the listed X can be used?
In my opinion, without it, the standard name is not defined precisely.
Or have I missed something?
Best wishes
Martina
Received on Fri Oct 24 2008 - 00:39:41 BST
