On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
I also agree with Bryan that standard names for geophysical
quantities should
not indicate how the measurement is done.
concur
There is another issue, which we
have been debating, about standard names for raw or uncalibrated
measur
Dear all
I agree with this statement of Bryan's:
> My feeling is that people should mark up their data with standard names that
> most accurate define what has been measured
I think there is a corollary, that we have standard names of various degrees
of precision, for different purposes. If som
l Message-
From: Bryan Lawrence [mailto:bryan.lawre...@stfc.ac.uk]
Sent: 29 July 2009 09:56
To: Lowry, Roy K
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard name definitions ... are these formal or
flexible
Hi Roy
Glad that it looks like Steve's specfiic problem isn't a prob
Hi Roy
Glad that it looks like Steve's specfiic problem isn't a problem given the name
change and definition you found.
However:
You've opened Pandora's box a bit (we've been hammering around the edges for a
while).
I can feel the o-word coming on ...
It's been incoming in the family chemistr
, which makes no
mention of ''Determined by filtration, drying and then weighing'.
Cheers, Roy.
-Original Message-
From: cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu
[mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Bryan Lawrence
Sent: 28 July 2009 19:17
To: cf-metadata@cgd.u
Hi Stephen
Alison is buried with CMIP5 problems at the moment, so may not get to this
query for a wihle. For my tuppence worth, the method by which something is
measured should not be in the definition, since the standard name is supposed
to be a geophysical quantity, however measured. We've be
Hi all
I am currently sifting through the Standard Name table for potential candidates
for naming geophysical products for a remote sensing satellite (ESA/GMES
Sentinel 3). One of our data products is the concentration of suspended matter
in sea water (TSM). I note that there is a standard n
