On Feb 23, 2010, at 06:33, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Contrived, yes, but sea+lake+river is certainly explicit and self-
explanatory,
isn't it? Standard names are contrived to explain what they mean,
rather than
being the terms used most commonly (although some of them are common
terms).
The t
john caron wrote:
Jonathan Blower wrote:
4) Finally on practical note: I seem to remember that someone has
implemented the 360-day calendar using the Java library joda-time? Is
this code available for re-use?
roland schweitzer has extended joda for 360 day calendar. I am
planning to use jod
Dear Jeff
Thanks for your email. I appreciate your arguments, which are very reasonable,
but I don't agree with them so far.
> Replacing 'sea_' with something else seems like it would
> break much existing code. Adding some names should be mostly harmless.
Yes, adding names is better. We can re
Dear CF group:
Thank you for your time in discussing this matter.
I would counsel you *not* to make wholesale changes to existing names just
because IOOS needs names for water levels that may or may not be measured in
the ocean! Replacing 'sea_' with something else seems like it would break mu
Dear Stephen
The issue here is that water doesn't only exist in these "bodies" of water
viz seas, lakes and river. It also exists in the atmosphere and the ground.
For this reason we don't have a standard name of just "water temperature",
for instance. We could define "aqua" to mean "sea, lake or
Hi Roy,
For sure, I wasn't proposing use of the word 'sorl', that was merely an
examplar. My argument was that since there appears to be no existing
term for what you want to describe - at least none without overloaded
meaning(s) - then just invent a completely new word. So, yes, by its
very natur
If I may make a suggestion that maintains the classical etymology and intuitive
understanding ... the characteristic that applies to all of these water bodies
is that they are water. Hence, I suggest that 'aqua' is both short, descriptive
and pertinent.
Kind Regards
Steve
--
Dr Stephen Emsley
Hi Phil,
Jonathan's argument against 'water body' was that it was not as well-known as
'sea'. I think that the argument applies even more strongly to 'sorl'.
Cheers, Roy.
-Original Message-
From: Bentley, Philip [mailto:philip.bent...@metoffice.gov.uk]
Sent: 23 February 2010 09:25
To:
Hi Roy,
Would simply inventing an artificial new term to represent
sea+lakes+rivers be an option here? Presumably, back in the day, there
was no word for a land-locked body of fresh water so someone thought, I
know, I'll call it a 'lake'. Or whatever the latin/greek equivalent was
back then!
So w
Hello again,
I wouldn't recommend using '/' in a string, such as a Standard Name, that could
potentially be incorporated into a URL.
I think using 'sea' as defined shorthand for 'river/lake/sea' has been
suggested before. I certainly have no problem with it as long as that
information is inc
Dear Roy
> I have concerns about having separate names for river, lake and sea. If you
> have them for height, then the logic would extend to temperature. I have
> temperature data from a boat that started in the North Sea, went up the
> Humber and then up to the navigable limit of the Yorksh
Hello Jonathan,
I have concerns about having separate names for river, lake and sea. If you
have them for height, then the logic would extend to temperature. I have
temperature data from a boat that started in the North Sea, went up the Humber
and then up to the navigable limit of the Yorkshi
Dear Alison
I suggest that these two standard names should be amended:
moles_per_unit_mass_of_cfc11_in_sea_water ->
moles_of_cfc11_per_unit_mass_in_sea_water
The latter order is followed by all the other names i.e.
moles_of_X_per_unit_mass_in_sea_water
change_over_time_in_atmospheric_wate
13 matches
Mail list logo
