[CF-metadata] Standard name definitions ... are these formal or flexible

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:37:09 +0100

Dear all

I agree with this statement of Bryan's:

> My feeling is that people should mark up their data with standard names that most accurate define what has been measured

I think there is a corollary, that we have standard names of various degrees
of precision, for different purposes. If some kinds of measurement or model do
not distinguish different types of chlorophyll, or if the distinction is
immaterial in a particular application, that means the quantities involving
these different types of chlorophyll are comparable quantities. Hence they
should have the same standard name, since we give the same standard name to
quantities which are intended to be comparable. However if in other
applications a distinction has to be drawn, we then need distinct standard
names for them. Standard names should be introduced for the purposes required,
rather than being a lexicon which dictates what is allowed to be described.

I also agree with Bryan that standard names for geophysical quantities should
not indicate how the measurement is done. There is another issue, which we
have been debating, about standard names for raw or uncalibrated measurements;
these quantities are not really geophysical - properties of the world - but
properties of the measurement apparatus or dataset.

Cheers

Jonathan
Received on Mon Aug 10 2009 - 12:37:09 BST