Thank you all for all your thoughts on this.
Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> 03/12/09 9:57 PM >>>
> I don't really know what it is, of course, but it sounds like it
> could have a standard name of ctd_fluorometer_voltage and units of
> V. <snip> Here, the quantity being named relates specifically to a
> means of measurement, not to the final product.
I must quibble. The quantity being named relates specifically to the
_units_ of the measurement, not the means of measurement. And the
reason this (new standard name) must be done is that Standard Names
are specifically tied to units (via the canonical units requirement),
and so the strange unit forces a different standard name.
And so for purest reflection of meaning, we are back to something like
'variant_unit' (instead of 'raw'). I discourage incorporating the
unit in the standard name ('voltage' in Jonathan's example) because
there is no way to know if *this* temperature_voltage variable is
interoperable with *that* temperature_voltage, unless attributes for
conversion to canonical units are provided. So the units attribute
can name the units, and this standard name should just make clear that
the units are not canonical units.
And, can we make it an item in appendix C, please?
> What are example of non-udunits? V is a udunit, all right. Perhaps a
> non-udunit
> is just a count of something? Does that need units? It could simply be
> regarded as dimensionless.
Addressed in other thread; no non-udunits have been identified so far
relating to raw geophysical data.
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 Thu Mar 12 2009 - 17:04:43 GMT
