Dear Jonathan, Martin and Philip ...,
I am little bit confused. Is the decision made to list each chemically
related
standard name all explicitly in the CF standard name list ?
I can't find the final discussion ?
Jonathan asked Philip and Martin but the answers were not so clear.
And I like to ask Jonathan why he changed his mind.
see:
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2007/001654.html
'Many of them have definitions which require the combination of the
specification of a physical quantity with the value of a parameter,
where the
parameter appears to Alison and me to be most naturally expressed as a
coordinate variable or scalar coordinate variable in CF. This isn't a new
kind of situation, but it is an issue worth thinking about.'
'We decided on the CF approach because it is more general and it reduces the
size of the standard name table by "factorising" the information. We could
have taken this approach further and made the standard name table more
hierarchical.'
Best wishes
Heinke
Received on Mon Oct 27 2008 - 04:21:35 GMT
