[CF-metadata] seeking CF name for total water column height
Dear Jeff and Roy I agree, it is arbitrary whether it is called sea_floor_depth_below_sea_surface or sea_surface_height_above_sea_floor and I agree with Roy that consistency with existing names would suggest the former. It's interesting that this kind of ambiguity hasn't arisen before. What you want to name is the distance between two named surfaces. In other names, we call the vertical distance between two surfaces a thickness e.g. ocean_mixed_layer_thickness. That doesn't have an associated direction (upward or downward) and so avoids this problem. By that analogy the quantity you want to name might be called thickness_of_ocean but I suspect most people would find that less obvious. What we are aiming at principally is clarity. The procedure for adding names is that Alison Pamment, the manager of standard names, will consider them and add them. She is dealing with CMIP5 names at present, I believe, so it might be a while before she gets to this. If no-one else objects soon or makes an alternative proposal, I'd suggest you use this name on the assumption that it will be added to the stdname table in due course. Best wishes Jonathan ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Re: [CF-metadata] seeking CF name for total water column height
Perhaps the infamous aliases would be an appropriate technique? I seem to recall that aliases are considered OK in some cases in CF, or am I remembering that incorrectly? I like the idea of 'distance_between_sea_floor_and_sea_surface' myself, rather than 'thickness_of_ocean' (though the latter is elegant too!). But in any case, it would be delightful if the two (three?) alternatives were also present, for searchers. John On Feb 2, 2010, at 10:22, Jonathan Gregory wrote: Dear Jeff and Roy I agree, it is arbitrary whether it is called sea_floor_depth_below_sea_surface or sea_surface_height_above_sea_floor and I agree with Roy that consistency with existing names would suggest the former. It's interesting that this kind of ambiguity hasn't arisen before. What you want to name is the distance between two named surfaces. In other names, we call the vertical distance between two surfaces a thickness e.g. ocean_mixed_layer_thickness. That doesn't have an associated direction (upward or downward) and so avoids this problem. By that analogy the quantity you want to name might be called thickness_of_ocean but I suspect most people would find that less obvious. What we are aiming at principally is clarity. The procedure for adding names is that Alison Pamment, the manager of standard names, will consider them and add them. She is dealing with CMIP5 names at present, I believe, so it might be a while before she gets to this. If no-one else objects soon or makes an alternative proposal, I'd suggest you use this name on the assumption that it will be added to the stdname table in due course. Best wishes Jonathan ___ 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
Re: [CF-metadata] seeking CF name for total water column height
Dear John Yes, good suggestion, we could adopt a new pattern vertical_distance_between_X and_Y for cases where thickness sounds peculiar. Aliases are really intended for cases where we make mistakes or change our minds, rather than to provide synonyms deliberately. We've preferred to force ourselves to agree where possible on a minimal vocabulary. Best wishes Jonathan ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Re: [CF-metadata] seeking CF name for total water column height
Dear Jonathan, The alias structure has developed into a deprecation mechanism and some of the more recent corrections have changed the meanings of the terms, so that the term and its alias are no longer synonyms. Using the alias mechanism to establish synonyms between undeprecated terms invites confusion - it's like building RDF triples with no predicate. Should the decision be taken to develop the Standard Names into a semantic network (which has been advocated at GO-ESSP meetings) then a more robust mechanism for specifying the relationship between terms is needed. I can support this, but the infrastructure on the CF site would need a minor upgrade. Cheers, Roy. From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory [j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk] Sent: 02 February 2010 18:43 To: John Graybeal Cc: CF Metadata List Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] seeking CF name for total water column height Dear John Yes, good suggestion, we could adopt a new pattern vertical_distance_between_X and_Y for cases where thickness sounds peculiar. Aliases are really intended for cases where we make mistakes or change our minds, rather than to provide synonyms deliberately. We've preferred to force ourselves to agree where possible on a minimal vocabulary. Best wishes Jonathan ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata -- This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. ___ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
