Hi Martina,
thanks for your valuable comments.
> 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'.
fine with me. So, perhaps the syntax should be:
<physical_quantity>_of_X_in_<medium>_due_to_<process>
where "X" can be a consituent name or an expression of the form
"<constituent_name>_expressed_as_<unit>"
>
> 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?
Indeed, it will require more than just a distinction betwen X, A, and G
to construct a meaningful table. For example: dust and seasalt usually
have no fine mode, so the corresponding table entry should be left
blank. Likewise, unsoluble species will not appear in a
"tendency_due_to_wet_removal" term, UV-stable species will never appear
in "tendency_due_to_photolytic_destruction" (we probably don't have that
anywhere yet, but at least it's a possible future addition), and so on.
I am afraid that it will mean some work to define the rules by which one
can construct a standard_name table from the matrix of physical
quantities and species. But then, exactly this should probably be the
task of the ACC community and that burden should be taken off the
shoulders of the CF group?
More specifically: I believe what the panel should agree on is
(1) the general syntax as desribed above
(2) a list of accepted <physical_quantity>
(3) a list of <medium>
(4) a list of <process>
(5) some concept of constituent naming (here, I believe we have already
pretty much agreed to make use of familiar terms while at the same time
trying to follow IUPAC where possible. In my viewe this would mean that
if two or more terms are in use and the IUPAC term is among them, then
the IUPAC term should be given preference)
Once this is agreed, the ACC sub-panel should get together and define
the species list (this then goes back to the GRIB2 proposal) and defien
the rules for constructing the actual standard_name table (including of
course a test run and evaluation of the result). John/Alison/et al.:
what you need to decide then is whether you want to add all of these
names to the "one-page-html" table or how the plethora of chemistry
names shall be managed.
Best regards,
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir'in Baerbel Brumme-Bothe
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr. Harald Bolt,
Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Oct 24 2008 - 02:40:17 BST
