Hi Roy,
Would simply inventing an artificial new term to represent
sea+lakes+rivers be an option here? Presumably, back in the day, there
was no word for a land-locked body of fresh water so someone thought, I
know, I'll call it a 'lake'. Or whatever the latin/greek equivalent was
back then!
So we might choose, say, the word 'sorl', this being an acronym for
seas, oceans, rivers and lakes. Sure that's not very pretty but no doubt
someone can think of a better word. Answers on an e-postcard...
Regards,
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu
> [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Lowry, Roy K
> Sent: 23 February 2010 09:06
> To: Jonathan Gregory
> Cc: Andrea Hardy; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
>
> Hello again,
>
> I wouldn't recommend using '/' in a string, such as a
> Standard Name, that could potentially be incorporated into a URL.
>
> I think using 'sea' as defined shorthand for 'river/lake/sea'
> has been suggested before. I certainly have no problem with
> it as long as that information is included in the definition.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:jonathan at met.reading.ac.uk] On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
> Sent: 23 February 2010 08:47
> To: Lowry, Roy K
> Cc: Jeff deLaBeaujardiere; Andrea Hardy; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
>
> Dear Roy
>
> > I have concerns about having separate names for river, lake
> and sea. If you have them for height, then the logic would
> extend to temperature. I have temperature data from a boat
> that started in the North Sea, went up the Humber and then up
> to the navigable limit of the Yorkshire Ouse. I would much
> prefer a single Standard Name across the whole dataset.
>
> I share that concern, but I didn't have a use-case where it
> would be a problem to have separate names, so thanks for that.
>
> > My suggestion of 'water body' as the generic term didn't
> get any reaction. Was that acceptance or did nobody notice it?
>
> I noticed it, yes, thanks! It is a correct generic term, of
> course, but I feel it would cause a loss of clarity to
> replace "sea" with "water body" in existing standard names
> e.g. water_body_surface_height, water_body_water_temperature,
> water_body_water_speed and water_body_ice_thickness are all
> unfamiliar terms, whereas sea_surface_height,
> sea_water_temperature, sea_water_speed and sea_ice_thickness
> are all recognisable. In the particular case of Jeff's,
> "water body surface height" is not a term that Google finds,
> whereas "sea surface height", "lake surface height" and
> "river surface height"
> do all exist.
>
> More cumbersome than "water body", but clearer I think, would
> be to use the phrase "sea/lake/river" (I think "/" is a
> permitted character) e.g.
> sea/lake/river_surface_height,
> sea/lake/river_water_temperature. We could provide such names
> of this type as are requested, for generic uses like yours,
> but keep the "sea" names as well.
>
> In a case such as yours, would it be acceptable to use "sea"
> all the time, even when it's a river?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> --
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only.
> NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and
> the contents of this email and any reply you make may be
> disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the
> Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an
> electronic records management system.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
Received on Tue Feb 23 2010 - 02:25:08 GMT
