Dear John et al. > water_surface_height_above_x seems to meet all the criteria.
I agree, this would be fine for Jeff's need. Thanks for suggesting it. It is like sea_surface_height_above_X, which already exists, and "surface" disambiguates it. It does not solve the general problem, illustrated by Roy's use case. We will not be able to use "surface" for properties measured *within* the water, such as temperature, velocity, etc., as that would be confusing. But, as is our usual habit, we can postpone trying to solve that problem until someone definitely requests a standard name which raises it. In that case, we'd probably have to return to the sea/lake/river debate. > 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. Yes, I actually agree. As for (a), maybe sea_lake_river would be better. "Sea" means ocean or sea in CF names - any body of water which is connected to the world ocean. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
