Dear Dave
I see, thanks. That makes sense. However, if you don't need to make such
distinctions yet, you could just have "in_river" for the moment, which may be
better because it's simpler. Later on, if needed, you could propose further
standard names with more qualifications. It's fine to provide both general
and specific standard names, for different purposes.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from David Blodgett <dblodgett at usgs.gov> -----
> Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 09:14:29 -0500
> From: David Blodgett <dblodgett at usgs.gov>
> To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
> CC: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposed standard_name for river discharge
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
>
> I actually suggested ?in river channel? to rich because of the potential to segregate into flow in fluvial sediments below the channel or in a floodplain disconnected from the channel, etc.
>
> Cheers!
>
> - Dave
>
> > On May 3, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Rich
> >
> >> How about a new standard_name called:
> >>
> >> "water_volume_transport_in_river_channel"
> >>
> >> with canonical units "m3/s" ?
> >
> > That's certainly a reasonable quantity to give a name too. Is "channel"
> > necessary?
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Jonathan
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Tue May 03 2016 - 08:26:47 BST
