Dear Martin, Roy, John, Robert
Reading the last few days' emails all at once I have may have skipped
important details; if so, apologies for that. I too am in favour of a grammar,
such as my earlier attempt
http://climate.ncas.ac.uk/~jonathan/CF_metadata/14.1/
Robert subsequently coded this grammar in an appropriate software language.
This grammar has only one level of patterns, but some of its lexicon could
be reduced further by having more than one level.
A grammar would be useful for constructing standard names. People
proposing names could be offered menus that allowed them to suggest names that
followed existing patterns, or extensions to vocabulary, or new patterns.
Thus all standard_names would naturally exist both as a specification that
consists of a pattern with specific vocabulary items filling certain place-
holders (the semantic tags, in effect), and as a joined-up standard_name. It's
equivalent information. The specification could also be automatically
translated into the accompanying description, since each pattern or semantic
tag could trigger an appropriate descriptive text.
It's easier to construct standard_names than to parse them, although parsing
is possible. Hence it may be useful to give software access to the spec as
well as the joined-up name.
Best wishes
Jonathan
Received on Mon Sep 17 2012 - 10:20:01 BST
