[CF-metadata] water level with/without datum

From: Bentley, Philip <philip.bentley>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:32:16 -0000

Hi Roy,

For sure, I wasn't proposing use of the word 'sorl', that was merely an
examplar. My argument was that since there appears to be no existing
term for what you want to describe - at least none without overloaded
meaning(s) - then just invent a completely new word. So, yes, by its
very nature it wouldn't be well-known on day 1!

Cheers,
Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lowry, Roy K [mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk]
> Sent: 23 February 2010 11:19
> To: Bentley, Philip
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> Jonathan's argument against 'water body' was that it was not
> as well-known as 'sea'. I think that the argument applies
> even more strongly to 'sorl'.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bentley, Philip [mailto:philip.bentley at metoffice.gov.uk]
> Sent: 23 February 2010 09:25
> To: Lowry, Roy K
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
>
> 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...
Received on Tue Feb 23 2010 - 04:32:16 GMT