Dear All,
My reason for including 'total' in these cases is because I've seen it used in that way by communities handling those particular parameters. Question is whether we follow CF past practice or established usage outside CF. I would prefer to follow community practice, but don't see inclusion/exclusion of total as a show-stopper. Jonathan and I (not for the first time) make the opinion score 1 all. Anybody else any views on this?
Cheers, Roy.
________________________________________
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory [j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk]
Sent: 08 December 2013 00:01
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
Dear Roy
> Thinking about it over night (I'm currently in San Diego), I think a way forward might be to use the word 'total' in all cases, but define is as 'in every form', which provides a common denominator between these two usages.
Yes, that's possible, but even simpler is to say that if nothing is specified,
the *default* is "in every form". I think that is the approach we have usually
taken, although I can't think of examples off the top of my head. I would note,
however, that there is only one existing standard name containing the word
"total" viz
sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale
in which "total" appears because it is the technical name of that scale.
(And I'm in Toronto on the way to San Francisco.)
Best wishes
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
Received on Mon Dec 09 2013 - 05:17:20 GMT
