I encourage CF to evaluate the creation of standard names on the basis
of what is useful and compatible with the standard names vocabulary,
rather than what is _required_ by the current standard. If CF does
not expressly exclude the creation of names of non-physical
quantities, then wouldn't it be a good thing to allow more complete
description of the contents of a data set, including its metadata if
necessary?
I am not knowledgeable enough to be know if this name is appropriate
in this particular context, so this is a more general question of
philosophy. So perhaps the topic should move to the TRAC discussions,
if my argument isn't rejected out of hand.
John
On Jan 9, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Karl Taylor wrote:
>> Given your comment to 1.2, I suggest: sea_water_equation_of_state
>
> No. No standard name is needed for non-physical quantities.
>
John
--------------
John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org> -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project:
http://marinemetadata.org
Received on Sat Jan 10 2009 - 12:51:28 GMT
