Hi all,
When I reread my previous mail, I found it was very confused and also looked not nice with previous contributions like Roy's: it was not my intentions, sorry for that. Writing things too fast causes muddled and blurred discourse! If we consider the last proposal from Seth, does that mean that we could have two different possibilities for the same standard name? If yes, I am afraid we could raise a situation where one would have collocated satellite data to compare with in-situ data and: - In the satellite dataset, CF attribute would be sea_surface_height_above_.. - In the in-situ dataset, CF attribute would be water_body_surface_height_above.. ? (Or perhaps I haven't well understood) Olivier -----Message d'origine----- De : cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] De la part de Seth McGinnis Envoyé : samedi 27 février 2010 04:51 À : cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu Objet : Re: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum >Therefore I think we have to decide what to call the new names. Roy suggested >water body. As I've said before, I would prefer sea/lake/river_water (or with >some other punctuation) to water_body_water, because sea/lake/river_water is >more self-explanatory, and the repetition of "water" in water_body_water is >clumsy and possibly confusing. I can imagine someone not being sure how to >parse "water body water temperature" when they first come across it. Instead of a prefix modifer, how about adding _body as a postfix modifier? So you could have sea_water_temperature for oceans and water_body_temperature for oceans, rivers, lakes, and other significant accumulations of liquid water. Cheers, ---- Seth McGinnis NARCCAP Data Manager ISSE / ISP / IMAGe / CISL / NCAR ---- (P.S.: Observation/tangent: It seems like this conundrum may be arising in part because the day-to-day meaning of the term "water" -- liquid H2O -- is at odds with the definition given in the standard name guidelines of "water in all phases if not otherwise qualified". Were there a blank slate, I would suggest using the unqualified term to mean "liquid water", in better alignment with its commonsense meaning, and coming up with a new term for the more restricted contexts where one needs to refer to all three phases. How frequently in current usage does the "all phases" sense differ fom the usual sense? Would it be worth considering a switch? That would be an alternate way around the issue of generic water bodies.) _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata Cliquez sur l'url suivante https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/Y8JdOU4DsM7TndxI!oX7UvGHrMX8oTLhxXmnApiAmj9zdQJy4gJWXe3FyfcXLuoUBltZoDt4qRPbd8XIx2vetQ== si ce message est indésirable (pourriel).
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
