[CF-metadata] Help needed with area_type and "surface type classification" datasets

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:41:22 +0100

Dear Jim

> If that is OK within the convention, the only issue I see is that
> the convention states that names for area types *must* come from the
> area type table. That seems unnecessarily restrictive to me, and
> I'd encourage the deletion of the requirement. I know that more
> table entries can be requested easily enough, but there are so very
> many area types that I can imagine. Do we get enough benefit by
> "standardizing" them to offset the cost in time and trouble of the
> growth of yet another complex name hierarchy? (I know. Some people
> will say "Yes!" I just have to ask.)

It's a fair question. I am one of those who would say "Yes"! If it turns out
that this becomes a large problem which we can't deal with effectively, we
will have to think again. So far that has not happened.

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Fri Sep 23 2011 - 08:41:22 BST