On Feb 23, 2010, at 06:33, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Contrived, yes, but sea+lake+river is certainly explicit and self- explanatory, isn't it? Standard names are contrived to explain what they mean, rather than being the terms used most commonly (although some of them are common terms). The term "name" is a bit misleading. They are not names, in most cases. They are answers to the question, "What does that mean?", when a term is used.
water_surface_height_above_x seems to meet all the criteria. It answers "what does that mean?" It is explicit and self-explanatory (and even reasonably short).
Thanks to the 'surface' term, it can not be confused with 'atmospheric surface water height' (what would that mean?).
The fact that it also applies to underground water is a non-issue, scientifically speaking, and in my mind is advantageous, because it is equally meaningful in that context. (Two data sets with this term can be compared, regardless of whether the water is underground or not -- the x normalized the reference, as does the location.) I can even construct a valid use case (for an AUV or hydro model) that is the analog of Roy's, in the case of underground streams feeding into oceans or rivers.
I could handle sea+lake+river but it doesn't thrill me, because of (a) special characters which can have unintended consequences for times now and yet to come, (b) 'sea' is not self-explanatory until you know it really means ocean (in some local dialects) and excludes inland seas (or maybe not?), and (c) awkwardness. Not a preference but if all others get ruled out, there we'd be.
John _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
