[CF-metadata] New standard names for OMIP biogeochemistry and chemistry

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 18:06:58 +0100

Dear John and Alison

I think the definition of limitation is fine for the names. However I do still
have a slight concern that "limitation" alone is not a very self-explanatory
term for the non-expert. Would it be possible and acceptable to say
growth_limitation instead? Another possible way to make the names easier to
parse might be to use due_to e.g.
  solar_irradiance_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton
could be
  growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance
Would that still be comprehensible to an expert?

> I think we're agreed that the abiotic names are needed, and if I've understood correctly we seem to have agreed to stick with due_to_abiotic_component because it works for all the names where it's used, including ph names. Is that right?

I think so. Apart from the pH names, we could say abiotic_carbon, I think,
which is a bit neater - I don't know whether it's preferable for an expert.

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Thu Oct 20 2016 - 11:06:58 BST