Dear Dave I see, thanks. That makes sense. However, if you don't need to make such distinctions yet, you could just have "in_river" for the moment, which may be better because it's simpler. Later on, if needed, you could propose further standard names with more qualifications. It's fine to provide both general and specific standard names, for different purposes.
Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from David Blodgett <dblodg...@usgs.gov> ----- > Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 09:14:29 -0500 > From: David Blodgett <dblodg...@usgs.gov> > To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk> > CC: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposed standard_name for river discharge > X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5) > > I actually suggested ‘in river channel’ to rich because of the potential to > segregate into flow in fluvial sediments below the channel or in a floodplain > disconnected from the channel, etc. > > Cheers! > > - Dave > > > On May 3, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk> > > wrote: > > > > Dear Rich > > > >> How about a new standard_name called: > >> > >> "water_volume_transport_in_river_channel" > >> > >> with canonical units "m3/s" ? > > > > That's certainly a reasonable quantity to give a name too. Is "channel" > > necessary? > > > > Best wishes > > > > Jonathan > > _______________________________________________ > > CF-metadata mailing list > > CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
