Hi,
the idea of putting a source of the definition to the name makes sense
if you want to include several definitions. This is the case for
cloud_area_fraction and isccp_cloud_area_fraction. So, if we had already
one definition of high_clouds, I would go for the SYNOP_high_clouds. But
we currently don't have several definitions, and CF should make it's own
one. And we currently agree very well on which definition to use.
I don't like the idea of putting the responsibility for the definition
into others hands. If the SYNOP definition changes, the CF-definition
should not. CF-definitions should be self-describing and not rely on
other parties.
Even if we used a prefix, we would still need the 'type' as discussed in
the beginning of this thread, i.e. because high is neither altitude nor
height, but a implicit name. So I would currently still prefer
high_type_cloud_area_fraction
middle_type_cloud_area_fraction
low_type_cloud_area_fraction
Best regards,
Heiko
On 2012-05-13 20:12, TOYODA Eizi wrote:
> Hi Philip,
>
> Your idea makes sense at least for me.
> My bottom line is to avoid being forced to use vertical axis to identify
> types of clouds.
>
> One thing: WMO is umbrella for too many programmes. So it is a bit
> unclear to specify cloud definitions in operational synoptic
> meteorology. So following might be clearer.
>
> SYNOP_high_cloud_area_fraction
> SYNOP_middle_cloud_area_fraction
> SYNOP_low_cloud_fraction
>
> (Heiko, what do you think? ?)
>
> Eizi
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cameron-smith, Philip"
> <cameronsmith1 at llnl.gov>
> To: "Jonathan Gregory" <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>;
> <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 4:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
>
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I am not wild about using 'type'. I had to read the terms several
>> times before I figured out what was being meant, because I could read
>> it different grammatical ways.
>>
>> A second problem is that it seems a particular definition will be
>> linked to these terms (or did I miss something?), yet someone might
>> reasonably want to use a different definition for high/middle/low
>> clouds in the future.
>>
>> Although I generally don't like including the origin of the data in
>> the std_name, I think this may be an exception. I would suggest using
>> either
>>
>> ISCCP_high_cloud_area_fraction
>> ISCCP_middle_cloud_area_fraction
>> ISCCP_low_cloud_fraction
>>
>> or
>>
>> WMO_high_cloud_area_fraction
>> WMO_middle_cloud_area_fraction
>> WMO_low_cloud_fraction
>>
>> I note that isccp_cloud_area_fraction is already an accepted std_name,
>> so the suggestions above follow naturally.
>>
>> This would also allow changes to the high/middle/low definitions in
>> the future. This would be a problem if there is a proliferation of
>> definitions, but I doubt this will be a problem.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Philip
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, pjc at llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu
>> [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:10 AM
>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name for cloud-cover by phenomenon
>>
>> Dear Heiko
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> These look fine to me. As you said to John, I hope that "type" would
>> trigger
>> people to look up the definition.
>>
>> Best wishes and thanks
>>
>> Jonathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Dr. Heiko Klein Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58
Development Section / IT Department Fax. + 47 22 69 63 55
Norwegian Meteorological Institute http://www.met.no
P.O. Box 43 Blindern 0313 Oslo NORWAY
Received on Mon May 14 2012 - 01:01:33 BST
