I am cross posting with regard to ticket #89 (
https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/89)
This comment:
https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/89#comment:4
presents a choice, which I encourage interested parties to state their view on, either on the ticket or by e-mail to myself and Jonathan.
> Replying to jonathan:
> > Dear Mark
> >
> > It could be argued that this relaxation does involve a change to the interpretation of existing data, because where archived data says "x" it might currently be assumed that this means it is definitely not "eastward". Once this change was made, you could not assume that any more.
>
> You are correct, this reinterpretation is a consequence of the proposal.
>
> > I think we may be trying to be too subtle with the interpretation. I would argue that this is a straightforward choice. Either we decide that in existing (and new) standard names "x" is allowed even when "x" happens to coincide with "east" (what you propose), or we decide that this is not allowed (in which case I can't see how to provide what you need except by using new standard names).
>
> I agree with the way you state the 'simple choice'. I think that this ticket indicates the implications of allowing 'x' when 'x' happens to be 'east'. I might describe it as 'just subtle enough' but that's just my perspective.
>
> > I also fear that few people apart from you and me are listening to this conversation, since trac tickets aren't widely distributed, as we know. Therefore, although it's where you started, I suggest that you might try again on the email list, presenting the question as a simple Yes/No choice, and inviting subscribers to the list to reply "Yes" or "No"!
>
> Hopefully Jeff's change will mean that this posting will also appear on the mailing list. Therefore I ask that people with an interest express their 'yes' or 'no', either on this ticket, or via email to mark.hedley at metoffice.gov.uk and j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk to this proposal.
>
> If the consensus is not to accept this interpretation then my next step will be to request a large number of new standard names which extensively overlap with the current standard names, which I feel causes many more issues than the reinterpretation proposed here.
>
> for example:
>
> xward_wind: "x" indicates a vector component along the grid x-axis, where this may or may not be true longitude, positive with increasing x. Wind is defined as a two-dimensional (horizontal) air velocity vector, with no vertical component. (Vertical motion in the atmosphere has the standard name upward_air_velocity.)
many thanks
mark
Received on Mon Jun 25 2012 - 07:13:50 BST
