Dear all I agree with this statement of Bryan's:
> My feeling is that people should mark up their data with standard names that > most accurate define what has been measured I think there is a corollary, that we have standard names of various degrees of precision, for different purposes. If some kinds of measurement or model do not distinguish different types of chlorophyll, or if the distinction is immaterial in a particular application, that means the quantities involving these different types of chlorophyll are comparable quantities. Hence they should have the same standard name, since we give the same standard name to quantities which are intended to be comparable. However if in other applications a distinction has to be drawn, we then need distinct standard names for them. Standard names should be introduced for the purposes required, rather than being a lexicon which dictates what is allowed to be described. I also agree with Bryan that standard names for geophysical quantities should not indicate how the measurement is done. There is another issue, which we have been debating, about standard names for raw or uncalibrated measurements; these quantities are not really geophysical - properties of the world - but properties of the measurement apparatus or dataset. Cheers Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata