I like the idea of appending "growth" to those limitation names - makes
sense.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20161020/3f109e94/attachment.html>
Received on Thu Oct 20 2016 - 11:21:32 BST
