On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Jonathan Gregory
<j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear Etienne
>
> If you need more area_types to be defined, such as the ones you list, that
> should be fine:
>
>> Water
>> Evergreen Needleleaf forest
>> Evergreen Broadleaf forest
>> Deciduous Needleleaf forest
> ...
>
> etc. To have the same look as the existing ones and standard names, I guess
> we would put them in as evergreen_needleleaf_forest, etc. I am sure it was
> expeced that types such as these would be put into the area_types table.
>
>> As many models can have different PFTs, depending on their complexity,
>> I don't see an advantage in making a standard name table for ?this,
>> because its use would be limited.
>> Although, if the list is comprehensive enough, it should be sufficient
>> for all needs
>
> It could be an advantage in that it would standardise the use of certain
> phrases for certain PFTs, like the area_type table and the region table.
> However, I agree that it is not essential.
Would it make sense to add a new standard table
"plant_functional_type" or is this overkill?
What do others have to say about this?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Thu Jun 14 2012 - 10:58:31 BST
