Hi Jonathan,
All right! Thank you very much for the clarification, it sounds good to me. I'm OK with that
Olivier
-----Message d'origine-----
De?: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:jonathan at met.reading.ac.uk] De la part de Jonathan Gregory
Envoy??: vendredi 5 mars 2010 14:29
??: olivier lauret
Cc?: Seth McGinnis; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Objet?: Re: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
Dear Olivier
> - 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..
I believe that we have agreed to call the latter water_surface_height_above...
(John's suggestion).
Are you happy with that? I think this general name could be used for sea,
lake or river, but we also keep the sea_surface_height for sea specifically.
I think sea_surface_height is the name which should be used for both
satellite altimetry and tide-gauge measurements (on the sea). It's the same
geophysical quantity, whichever way it's measured, so it should have the
same name. water_surface_height could equally be used for either measurement
method, and is appropriate if the data are not just for the sea.
This sidesteps the general issue of sea/lake/river terms. The use of "surface"
in water_surface makes it clear enough where the water is. If someone is
definitely asking for a standard name which refers to a property of water in
in sea, lake or river in general, we can return to that discussion. Roy gave a
use case, but I'm not sure if that's a definite need. At present, my own
preference would be for the lengthy but clear phrase sea_or_lake_or_river.
Best wishes
Jonathan
Cliquez sur l'url suivante
https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/ROXy6RRVjiDTndxI!oX7UtECuJx2pP2xUXH5bYXq6nCtlOBZquI!qzF+!sGAiQv0NoXV7xPWi+wY6wpstbrpNg==
si ce message est ind?sirable (pourriel).
Received on Fri Mar 05 2010 - 06:51:51 GMT
