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

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:46:24 +0100

Dear Martina

> 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?

Those all look fine to me.

I agree with your argument that expressed_as goes closely with the chemical
species, and therefore before in_air. That will generally make the names easier
to understand.

> > 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?

I think this question is not settled. If there is only one list X, and CF
doesn't have to approve each individual combination of standard_name template
with X, nonsensical combinations would be permitted. Maybe that is OK, because
even if they are allowed, users will not necessarily use them! If it is not
OK, the potential nonsense could be reduced by having various lists, and
specifying in the definition of each standard_name which lists were allowed
for it. Nonsense could only be prevented by continuing to approve each
combination individually and list it as a separate entry in the standard name
table. So this is an important question of principle.

Cheers

Jonathan
Received on Fri Oct 24 2008 - 01:46:24 BST