One last note re developing a comprehensive system for naming
concepts: As previously noted, I would love to see this. It is the
right and necessary thing to do in the long run.
But I do not think CF is necessarily the right organization to take it
on now, because it will be extremely diffi
ta Centre
> Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Caron
> Sent: 03 November 2008 15:33
> Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] a different (but perhaps unorig
I love the list of classifiers and hope that discussion can continue.
Having also tried to come up with a pervasive system for standard
names (both in CF and in other contexts) over the years, here are some
observations.
Naming Effort: It appears CF standard names were originally Much More
03 November 2008 15:33
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] a different (but perhaps unoriginal) approach
to standard name construction
I would propose that we dont replace the current standard_name
attribute, but explore alternative representations of their semantics.
The goa
ginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Caron
Sent: 03 November 2008 15:33
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] a different (but perhaps unoriginal) approach
to standard name construction
I would propose that we dont replace the cu
Dear Jonathan,
do you like to discuss this?
>
> * I listed in another thread some questions that Stephen Griffies and I have
> been discussing for ocean quantities for CMIP5. These are the kind of
> decisions that took most time, not actually stringing together a name:
> - Basin masks for tracer an
Dear Karl et al.
>
> 1) Currently it is impossible to identify with a single standard name,
> closely related variables that one might want to store in a single
> array). For example, such quantities as:
Could this be an overload of the standard names? To give roles for
creating experiment and data
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
Hi Karl:
I think this is a very important idea thats worth exploring further. An important step would be to try to retrofit the existing set of standard names, and see what issues arise. It would be interesting, in fast, for more than one person to independently try that, making up their own set
Hello,
Karl's email has prompted me to mention some work I've done over the
last week or so in representing variable names as compound terms. This
is highly experimental, and not at all definitive, but merely meant for
exploring possibilities.
As Karl also suggests, it is based on the repr
Hello,
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Karl Taylor wrote:
> It seems to me that the issue of possibly wanting to store several different
> chemical species in a single array (with a coordinate variable identifying the
> species) is only one limitation of the current constraints placed by standard
> names. W
Dear all,
It seems to me that the issue of possibly wanting to store several
different chemical species in a single array (with a coordinate variable
identifying the species) is only one limitation of the current
constraints placed by standard names. We've also run up against the
following d
19 matches
Mail list logo
