Dear Sebastien > @Jonathan: what would be the standard names if we were using > "_due_to_change_in_" ? Since it is a "change" of height due to a "change" of > a physical property, we end up with: > > change_in_sea_surface_height_due_to_change_in_sea_water_density > change_in_sea_surface_height_due_to_change_in_sea_water_practical_salinity > change_in_sea_surface_height_due_to_change_in_sea_water_temperature
Yes, I agree, that would be right. > It is fine for me but I understand it could look awkward to some > users/experts. It is however nicely verbose to help understand what those > parameters are. > > If we were removing "_above_sea_floor" from the names proposed by Alison: > > steric_change_in_sea_surface_height > halosteric_change_in_sea_surface_height > thermosteric_change_in_sea_surface_height > > it is more compact and elegant but it could be a bit cryptic to non-experts. Yes, I agree with this too. As I mentioned, thermosteric and steric do appear in existing names (one each), so we should either rename those with due_to, or use the steric terms here, for consistency. > I am fine with both formulations and I agree with Kevin, we could keep both > versions and make aliases. I am fine too with either of them, but not with aliases for this purpose. We use aliases to preserve backwards-compatibility when we change our minds, not to provide synonyms in the first place. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
