McGinnis
Envoyé : samedi 27 février 2010 04:51
À : cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Objet : Re: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
Therefore I think we have to decide what to call the new names. Roy suggested
water body. As I've said before, I would prefer sea/lake/river_water (or with
some other
Dear Olivier
- In the satellite dataset, CF attribute would be
sea_surface_height_above_..
- In the in-situ dataset, CF attribute would be
water_body_surface_height_above..
I believe that we have agreed to call the latter water_surface_height_above...
(John's
Graybeal; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
Agreed, water_surface_height_above_x is perfect. And simple,
as Jeff pointed out earlier this week.
I think Roy's example is a relevant use case. Although he has not made a
proposal, his data set requires
Dear Nan
I think Roy's example is a relevant use case. Although he has not made a
proposal, his data set requires either a new name of
river_water_temperature,
or a name which can be used for both sea and river. The existing name of
sea_water_temperature is not sufficient for the case he
Dear Jeff
After more internal discussion we feel that the single name
'water_surface_height_above_reference_datum' would meet our needs admirably
(i.e., no separate name for the station datum case).
Very good. Is this an arbitrary local reference datum? I think that would
be the right name,
Therefore I think we have to decide what to call the new names. Roy suggested
water body. As I've said before, I would prefer sea/lake/river_water (or with
some other punctuation) to water_body_water, because sea/lake/river_water is
more self-explanatory, and the repetition of water in
Dear John et al.
water_surface_height_above_x seems to meet all the criteria.
I agree, this would be fine for Jeff's need. Thanks for suggesting it. It is
like sea_surface_height_above_X, which already exists, and surface
disambiguates it.
It does not solve the general problem, illustrated by
Agreed, water_surface_height_above_x is perfect. And simple,
as Jeff pointed out earlier this week.
I think Roy's example is a relevant use case. Although he has not made a
proposal, his data set requires either a new name of river_water_temperature,
or a name which can be used for both sea and
-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
Sent: 22 February 2010 19:02
To: Jeff deLaBeaujardiere
Cc: Andrea Hardy; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
Dear Jeff et al
About
water_level_with|above_reference_datum
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 Yorkshire
-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Lowry, Roy K
Sent: 23 February 2010 09:06
To: Jonathan Gregory
Cc: Andrea Hardy; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
Hello again,
I wouldn't recommend using '/' in a string, such as a
Standard Name
To: Lowry, Roy K
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
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
nature it wouldn't be well-known on day 1!
Cheers,
Phil
-Original Message-
From: Lowry, Roy K [mailto:r...@bodc.ac.uk]
Sent: 23 February 2010 11:19
To: Bentley, Philip
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum
Hi Phil,
Jonathan's
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 river,
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
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
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
Dear John
Sorry not to be clear. My main point is that sea_surface_height is an existing
term which is customarily used to refer to the level of the water surface in
the open ocean. I am arguing that, at the coast, the level of the sea water
surface is really the same quantity as
Thank you for the discussion and current status regarding
sea_floor_depth_below_sea_surface as a new standard name. I have changed the
subject line of this email to focus on the other names we discussed. I have
also CCed our local water level expert (Andrea Hardy from NOAA CO-OPS); my
replies
Dear Jeff, Alison et al.
Like Alison, I prefer sea_surface_height to water_level, because it's really
the same geophysical quantity at the coast and far from the coast, isn't it. It
seems awkward to me to say that the satellite altimeter measures SSH, while a
tide gauge measures water level. The
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
As for sea, lake and river - this is a vexed question we have never resolved!
If only there were a simple word which meant any of the three!
That's why 'water_' seems preferable, in my view.
Cheers,
Jeff DLB
___
CF-metadata
Dear Jeff
As for sea, lake and river - this is a vexed question we have never
resolved!
If only there were a simple word which meant any of the three!
That's why 'water_' seems preferable, in my view.
Unfortunately water occurs not just in the sea, lakes and rivers, but also
in the
The term 'water_' is preferable to me too.
When this liquid occurs underground, it still is appropriate to
measure this quantity (and temperature, and other things). And when it
occurs in the atmosphere, I don't think the term has any meaning --
measuring the height of atmospheric water is
23 matches
Mail list logo
