[CF-metadata] water level with/without datum

From: Philip J. Cameronsmith1 <cameronsmith1>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:29:31 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, John Graybeal wrote:

>
> 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

Hi John,

Your suggestion does seem to have a lot of merits, and addresses many of
the concerns I've seen raised.

You mention using water_surface for underground streams. Could it also be
used for ground water table? I presume it could, but I'm no expert. I
couldn't find a water table quantity in the standard name table, and I'm
sure it would be useful. If so, then this would be an added benefit.

Yours truly,

     Philip

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith Atmospheric, Earth, and Energy Division
pjc at llnl.gov Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
+1 925 4236634 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA94550, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Feb 24 2010 - 11:29:31 GMT