I would wait till people have a use case that can drive specific names.
> On May 9, 2016, at 8:00 AM, Signell, Richard <rsignell at usgs.gov> wrote:
>
> Dave,
> Do you think we should also introduce other water_volume_transport
> quantities together to make this clear?
>
> water_volume_transport_in_river_channel
> water_volume_transport_over_land
> water_volume_transport_in_???
>
> -Rich
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:14 AM, David Blodgett <dblodgett at usgs.gov> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 May 09 2016 - 08:08:22 BST
