Agreed, water_surface_height_above_x is perfect. And simple,
as Jeff pointed out earlier this week.
> I think Roy's example is a relevant use case. Although he has not made a
> proposal, his data set requires either a new name of river_water_temperature,
> or a name which can be used for both sea and river. The existing name of
> sea_water_temperature is not sufficient for the case he described.
>
Roy's example shows the need for a *single name* that can be used for
both sea and river temperature, not different names, if I understand his
description correctly.
I'd like to extend the use of this prospective term to sub-surface water
bodies, which, like rivers, don't always have clear boundaries. We have
ROVs that travel from lakes and reservoirs through subsurface passages;
I don't see any reason to (or reasonable way to) split up the measurements
made by these instruments based on which side of an invisible line they're
on at any given point.
So, I think 'water' is far better than 'sea_lake_river_water'.
There are several names that use the modifiers 'atmosphere', 'in_air' and
'surface' to indicate water that's not part of a water body. Does this
imply
that the unmodified term 'water' means water that's in a water body?
The only names I can find that use plain 'water' seem to be sound_intensity
and sound_pressure terms - I assume these refer to water in a water body?
Is that enough of a precedent to suggest that water_temperature, _velocity,
_salinity, etc etc could be standard names for properties of the water in
bodies of water?
Cheers -
Nan
>> water_surface_height_above_x seems to meet all the criteria.
>>
>
>
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Thu Feb 25 2010 - 09:46:55 GMT
