[CF-metadata] Proposed standard_name for river discharge
+1
> On May 3, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> 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 -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Tue May 03 2016 - 08:29:19 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Sep 13 2022 - 23:02:42 BST