Hi All,
Would it work to include an 'unknown' scale?
Best wishes,
Philip
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Philip Cameron-Smith, p...@llnl.gov, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-
> boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of John Graybeal
> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 4:34 PM
> To: Jonathan Gregory
> Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Upendra Dadi
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard name for sea water ph without
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>
> >> Though I am still not sure why not all five standard names were
> included. If there is an analogy between sea water pH and sea water
> temperature, as mentioned in one of the emails, why not have
> sea_water_pH just as we have sea_water_temperature?
> >
> > I think the reason not all five were added is that only one of them
> was requested at the time. I believe that was the right decision,
> because it's generally only when we have a real use-case that the
> expertise is at hand i.e. the proposer to explain what is required.
>
> Ah, my previous comment was to the wrong point. Jonathan is correct in
> the CF sense of things -- we requested all 5, but it was determined we
> only really needed 1 of the 5 at that time. Consistent with the CF
> philosophy, we elected not to cause ourselves trouble by "looking
> ahead." (By the way, I like your idea of referencing the thread
> somehow. Would be a nice contextual bit for those new to the
> discussion.)
>
> On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:47, Upendra Dadi wrote:
>
> > But the semantic issues should not become operational bottlenecks. I
> work at a data center where I do come across datasets where ambiguities
> about what the data represents is not uncommon. Often, it is almost
> impossible to resolve the ambiguities. If I have dataset which has an
> accompanying document which says that the dataset represents sea water
> pH without giving any scale, there should still be a way to encode this
> information into the dataset. ... Of course, I can put this information
> as part of long name or comment which is unstructured information, but
> for "deep" semantic searches this is not an ideal solution.
>
>
> I like this point.
>
> One of the clear strengths of the CF vocabulary is that it has strong,
> conscientious community review, not to mention professional management,
> and that all of that is devoted to creating crisp terminology. I like
> your point here, and I could envision a subclass of names that are not
> so strongly constrained. (Oddly, a good name for this concept eludes
> me!) It would be nice to be able to search data, using standard names,
> for a class of parameter -- e.g., 'anything measuring sea_water_ph'.
>
> This is enough of a variation on the current approach that it would
> almost certain require a TRAC ticket proposal and some discussion
> (because many of the generic terms would require different units under
> different circumstances, which is very non-CFish). So, let's see if
> there's interest....
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
