So, anytime I see the word 'type' in a variable name, it catches my eye -- it usually indicates a concept that exists but hasn't been named. (Because there was *some* reason for grouping the clouds that way, right?)
In this case, I know pretty much nothing about clouds, but it looks to me like the concept may be altitude or height. If that were true I would much prefer 'high_altitude_cloud_area_fraction' and so on. Or whatever the right concept is.
John
On May 7, 2012, at 01:29, Heiko Klein wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> I just had a short side-discussion with Eizi, and we settled on 'type', i.e. we propose the standard names:
>
> high_type_cloud_area_fraction
> middle_type_cloud_area_fraction
> low_type_cloud_area_fraction
>
>
> As explanatory text, the one of cloud_area_fraction is a good start, and then an addition like:
>
> high type clouds are: Cirrus, Cirrostratus, Cirrocumulus
> middle type clouds are: Altostratus, Altocumulus, Nimbostratus
> low type clouds are: Stratus, Stratocumulus, Cumulus, Cumulonimbus
>
> Best regards,
>
> Heiko
>
> On 2012-04-27 17:30, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>> Dear Eizi and Heiko
>>
>> I think this kind of idea is good
>>>> high_genera_cloud_area_fraction:
>> etc.
>>
>> "type" or "genera" would both be OK, but "genera" is a plural so better English
>> would probably be "type" (or "genus").
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
Received on Mon May 07 2012 - 09:53:35 BST
