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

From: John Graybeal <graybeal>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:02:19 -0600

On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:

> <snip>
> I also agree with Bryan that standard names for geophysical
> quantities should
> not indicate how the measurement is done.

concur

> 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.

I'd say more precisely these quantities are how the measurement
apparatus or dataset has represented, or transformed, the world's
geophysical properties, such that they are in none-worldly units. So
to speak.

Just so you know, this previous discussion went on hiatus (on my part)
when someone asked a very good question (about the value of such
terms), to which I was unable to quickly formulate a reply. I
consider this still pending on my part.

John
Received on Tue Aug 11 2009 - 23:02:19 BST