The original proposal was to include names that have been rejected by
CF for being "too specialized" - these would be permanent parts of the
project vocabulary, not deprecated.
Many in situ instruments produce non-geophysical variables that fall
into this category; although this isn't what Martin had in mind, his
proposal - or something along the same lines - would help us get to
a standard naming scheme for this kind of data too.
- Nan
> So my proposal was to create a vocabulary, or more precisely an RDF
> store, that lets us:
> 1) declare a name that may be proposed as a CF candidate
> 2) make a statement that the name has been (or even 'is being')
> submitted to CF for consideration
> 3a) make a statement that the name has been accepted as a CF name,
> and therefore is deprecated as a proposed name
> 3b) make a statement that the name has been rejected as a CF name,
> and therefore is deprecated as a proposed name
> In either 3a or 3b,
> 4) make a statement that the replacement representation of the name
> is xyz in some other vocabulary
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
Received on Wed May 12 2010 - 13:35:16 BST
