Dear colleagues,
There is obviously a very active discussion on the best strategy to
construct new standard names for aerosols and chemicals at the CF
mailing list. Therefore, I try to summarize the current status of work
on a wiki page in order to highlight the principles and concepts we have
Dear All,
Just a reminder that I've been down this path with the parameter descriptions
in http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/list/P012/current (and the much bigger P011)
that are built from between 10 and 25 semantic elements.
The approach I took was to make each element a controlled vocabulary and h
I would propose that we dont replace the current standard_name attribute, but explore alternative representations of their semantics. The goal would be to clarify the relationships of the various semantic components of a standard quantity, and to explore possible grammers for generating the name.
hi Robert
Sorry, I was ambiguous.
Insofar as standard names follow the guidelines, so the construction of
definitions tries to use the same phrases etc that underlied the existing
definitions as they are tied to the constructs in the guidelines.
So, I misused the word formalisation in that sen
Bryan,
a) formalising the construction of standard names (this is not a big step, I believe Alison does a fair bit of this anyway, but what folk probably don't realise is that having done that, a fair bit of the definition is formalised too).
Are Alison's rules for formalising the construction o
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Jonathan Gregory
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Bryan
>
>
>
> What we disagree on is where the effort is mostly spent. I know for sure that
> most of the large amount of time I have myself spent on them has been on
> understanding the concepts and how they relate
Dear Bryan
I am not arguing against moving away from the status quo. I am arguing against
(in most cases) moving away from a flat list, but you don't think that is the
crucial point either. I am in favour of writing down all the rules (more than
the guidelines show) in order to make it easier to a
Hi Karl
Despite Jonathan's well reasoned arguments against moving away from the status
quo, I am of the opinion that "something has to be done". (While still being
*very* appreciative of the effort that goes into the definitions and the
distinctions, I think that very effort makes the additio
Dear Karl et al.
Standard names are certainly a difficult business and it's a good idea to
discuss how we should be dealing with them. They are much more than names, as
Julia Collins remarked.
In your email, Karl, I am unclear whether you are proposing to replace the
single standard_name attribut
Dear Jonathan,
>
>> Is the decision made to list each chemically related
>> standard name all explicitly in the CF standard name list ?
>>
>
> This is not clear to me either. Recent emails seem to be in favour of still
> putting them explicitly in the standard name i.e. *not* using a coordi
10 matches
Mail list logo
