[CF-metadata] water level with/without datum

From: olivier lauret <olauret>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:03:26 +0100

Hi all,

 

When I reread my previous mail, I found it was very confused and also looked not nice with previous contributions like Roy's: it was not my intentions, sorry for that. Writing things too fast causes muddled and blurred discourse!

 

If we consider the last proposal from Seth, does that mean that we could have two different possibilities for the same standard name?

 

If yes, I am afraid we could raise a situation where one would have collocated satellite data to compare with in-situ data and:

- In the satellite dataset, CF attribute would be sea_surface_height_above_..

- In the in-situ dataset, CF attribute would be water_body_surface_height_above..

?

 

(Or perhaps I haven't well understood)

 

Olivier

 

 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] De la part de Seth McGinnis
Envoy? : samedi 27 f?vrier 2010 04:51
? : cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Objet : Re: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum

 

>Therefore I think we have to decide what to call the new names. Roy suggested

>water body. As I've said before, I would prefer sea/lake/river_water (or with

>some other punctuation) to water_body_water, because sea/lake/river_water is

>more self-explanatory, and the repetition of "water" in water_body_water is

>clumsy and possibly confusing. I can imagine someone not being sure how to

>parse "water body water temperature" when they first come across it.

 

 

Instead of a prefix modifer, how about adding _body as a postfix

modifier?

 

So you could have sea_water_temperature for oceans and

water_body_temperature for oceans, rivers, lakes, and other

significant accumulations of liquid water.

 

Cheers,

 

----
Seth McGinnis
NARCCAP Data Manager
ISSE / ISP / IMAGe / CISL / NCAR
----
 
(P.S.: Observation/tangent: It seems like this conundrum may be arising in
part because the day-to-day meaning of the term "water" -- liquid H2O
-- is at odds with the definition given in the standard name
guidelines of "water in all phases if not otherwise qualified".  Were
there a blank slate, I would suggest using the unqualified term to
mean "liquid water", in better alignment with its commonsense meaning,
and coming up with a new term for the more restricted contexts where
one needs to refer to all three phases.  How frequently in current
usage does the "all phases" sense differ fom the usual sense? Would it
be worth considering a switch?  That would be an alternate way around
the issue of generic water bodies.)
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
 
 
                           Cliquez sur l'url suivante 
https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/Y8JdOU4DsM7TndxI!oX7UvGHrMX8oTLhxXmnApiAmj9zdQJy4gJWXe3FyfcXLuoUBltZoDt4qRPbd8XIx2vetQ==  
                    si ce message est ind?sirable (pourriel).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20100305/909755e5/attachment-0002.html>

Received on Fri Mar 05 2010 - 06:03:26 GMT