[CF-metadata] water level with/without datum

From: John Graybeal <jbgraybeal>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:17:24 -0800

On Feb 23, 2010, at 06:33, Jonathan Gregory wrote:

> Contrived, yes, but sea+lake+river is certainly explicit and self-
> explanatory,
> isn't it? Standard names are contrived to explain what they mean,
> rather than
> being the terms used most commonly (although some of them are common
> terms).
> The term "name" is a bit misleading. They are not names, in most
> cases. They
> are answers to the question, "What does that mean?", when a term is
> used.


water_surface_height_above_x seems to meet all the criteria. It
answers "what does that mean?" It is explicit and self-explanatory
(and even reasonably short).

Thanks to the 'surface' term, it can not be confused with 'atmospheric
surface water height' (what would that mean?).

The fact that it also applies to underground water is a non-issue,
scientifically speaking, and in my mind is advantageous, because it is
equally meaningful in that context. (Two data sets with this term can
be compared, regardless of whether the water is underground or not --
the x normalized the reference, as does the location.) I can even
construct a valid use case (for an AUV or hydro model) that is the
analog of Roy's, in the case of underground streams feeding into
oceans or rivers.

I could handle sea+lake+river but it doesn't thrill me, because of (a)
special characters which can have unintended consequences for times
now and yet to come, (b) 'sea' is not self-explanatory until you know
it really means ocean (in some local dialects) and excludes inland
seas (or maybe not?), and (c) awkwardness. Not a preference but if all
others get ruled out, there we'd be.

John
Received on Wed Feb 24 2010 - 00:17:24 GMT