It looks like the OGC Met-Ocean Domain Working Group has also been
thinking about this:
http://external.opengeospatial.org/twiki_public/MetOceanDWG/MetOceanWMSBP20120206
This doc is two years old, so I'll ask Jeff DLB if he can summarize
for the list what they came up with.
-Rich
-R
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Jonathan Gregory
<j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Thank you for clarifications and further information.
>
> We used "altitude" for "height above geoid" because that's what it most
> commonly means, I think. However, it's unclear. To avoid confusion, we could
> rename altitude as height_above_geoid, using aliases. There are 14 standard
> names which use the word altitude. Would that be worth doing?
>
> Similarly, we could rename plain "height" as height_above_surface. There are
> about 5 standard names which would be affected. Likewise (and relating also to
> another thread), we could rename plain "depth" as depth_below_surface. There
> are about 14 standard names using this word in that sense. Is this worthwhile,
> or shall we continue with short words and rely on the definitions? Opinions
> would be welcome.
>
> It would be really useful if anyone could explain how the geoid is identified
> in CRS WKT.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229
USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
Received on Mon Feb 17 2014 - 11:47:20 GMT
