Hello Jonathan,
I had the same gut reaction as you and almost came up with the same response until I read the definition "Content indicates a quantity per unit area" on 369 Standard Names. So, perhaps Olivier is being consistent and tha handful of 'per_unit_area" Standard Names are not.
Cheers, Roy.
-----Original Message-----
From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 02 December 2010 13:44
To: Lauret Olivier
Cc: Laurence Crosnier; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu; Cristina Tronconi; Bruce Hackett; o.godoy at met.no; Thomas LOUBRIEU; Lia Santoleri; Philippe Garnesson
Subject: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour and iceberg concentration
Dear Olivier
> number_content_of_icebergs (m-2)
That is consistent with existing names and makes sense but it's a bit
surprising, don't you think? Because icebergs are so large, it doesn't seem
obvious to talk about the number content of them; that idea is more applicable
to microscopic objects. It would feel more natural to me to name this
number_of_icebergs_per_unit_area
We already use the phrase per_unit_area in other names as well.
Cheers
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
Received on Thu Dec 02 2010 - 06:53:09 GMT
