Perhaps the infamous aliases would be an appropriate technique? I
seem to recall that aliases are considered OK in some cases in CF, or
am I remembering that incorrectly?
I like the idea of 'distance_between_sea_floor_and_sea_surface'
myself, rather than 'thickness_of_ocean' (though the latter is elegant
too!). But in any case, it would be delightful if the two (three?)
alternatives were also present, for searchers.
John
On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:22, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Jeff and Roy
>
> I agree, it is arbitrary whether it is called
> sea_floor_depth_below_sea_surface
> or
> sea_surface_height_above_sea_floor
> and I agree with Roy that consistency with existing names would
> suggest
> the former.
>
> It's interesting that this kind of ambiguity hasn't arisen before.
> What you
> want to name is the distance between two named surfaces. In other
> names, we
> call the vertical distance between two surfaces a "thickness" e.g.
> ocean_mixed_layer_thickness. That doesn't have an associated
> "direction"
> (upward or downward) and so avoids this problem. By that analogy the
> quantity
> you want to name might be called thickness_of_ocean but I suspect
> most people
> would find that less obvious. What we are aiming at principally is
> clarity.
>
> The procedure for adding names is that Alison Pamment, the manager
> of standard
> names, will consider them and add them. She is dealing with CMIP5
> names at
> present, I believe, so it might be a while before she gets to this.
> If no-one
> else objects soon or makes an alternative proposal, I'd suggest you
> use this
> name on the assumption that it will be added to the stdname table in
> due
> course.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Tue Feb 02 2010 - 11:30:44 GMT
