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