Dear Chris I'm aware that I've caused frustration before by insisting on this point, but believe me, my aim is not to be annoying! We do actually have "total" in two standard names, where it was a technical term which seemed essential for clarification and which could not easily be explained in simpler terms. That is, in those two names: atmosphere_stability_total_totals_index sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale "total" doesn't mean an aggregation, but something rather specific. In other cases, we assume that "total" is intended if there isn't a qualification. CF standard names follow commonly used terms when those are systematic and self- explanatory or there is no alternative, but they aren't necessarily the same as common terms. I think in many cases the CF standard name is an answer to the question "What does that mean?" rather than to "What do you call that?", because this is useful in the interdisciplinary context of CF.
Therefore I still feel that total should be omitted from the standard name. In the definition we could say that this is often/usually called "total" and certainly we would explain it refers to all phases and compounds together. It would be useful to hear other opinions on this. Thanks for your patience. Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> ----- > Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:09:59 -0700 > From: Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> > To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk> > CC: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Gregory <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally assume > > that > > the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and we add more words in > > order > > to be specific, for example atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means > > all kinds of cloud, and > > atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud > > is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be consistent with > > this pattern, in order to mean all phases. > > > > Indeed -- however, the "total" in "total petroleum hydrocarbons" is very > much part of the name in common usage. And I think the "total" refers both > to phase: droplets vs dissolved, and also to the multiple compounds and > classes of compound, like in contrast, with, say" Polycyclic aromatic > hydrocarbon" (PAH). So I say we keep the "total" in the name. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_petroleum_hydrocarbon > > If someone is concerned about what the instrument measures, I'd ask someone > technical at the company of TPH captures it for them. > > (after all, what the instrument REALLY measures is Fluorescence...) > > > -CHB > > > > > -- > > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. > Oceanographer > > Emergency Response Division > NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice > 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax > Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception > > chris.bar...@noaa.gov ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
