Hi Martina, thanks for your valuable comments.
> 2. Martin/Jonathan concerning syntax definition for chemical quantities > > basically the "<physical_quantity>_of_X_in_<medium>_as_<identity>" level of Martina's > > proposal > > Actually, for me the 'as_<identity>' was part of the constituent X, e.g. > methane or nmvoc_expressed_as_carbon. I placed the medium at the end and > suggested, e.g. mole_fraction_of_nmvoc_expressed_as_carbon_in_air and > mole_fraction_of_methane_in_air. I think that has advantages in the > automatic construction of CF standard names out of these two parts: > physical quantity and constituent. > Additionally, at the very end of the name there is another keyword > _due_to_<process>. > <physical_quantity>_of_X_in_<medium>_due_to_<process> where X can > include an 'as'. fine with me. So, perhaps the syntax should be: <physical_quantity>_of_X_in_<medium>_due_to_<process> where "X" can be a consituent name or an expression of the form "<constituent_name>_expressed_as_<unit>" > > Philip/Martin concerning A,G,X and units for chemical species: > > This is why I was trying to point out that CF doesn't need to keep > > separate lists for X, A, G, or any other set of species. We will only > > need a single list of species: X. > > Where is the information then for a physical quantity for an aerosol > that only part of the listed X can be used? > In my opinion, without it, the standard name is not defined precisely. > Or have I missed something? Indeed, it will require more than just a distinction betwen X, A, and G to construct a meaningful table. For example: dust and seasalt usually have no fine mode, so the corresponding table entry should be left blank. Likewise, unsoluble species will not appear in a "tendency_due_to_wet_removal" term, UV-stable species will never appear in "tendency_due_to_photolytic_destruction" (we probably don't have that anywhere yet, but at least it's a possible future addition), and so on. I am afraid that it will mean some work to define the rules by which one can construct a standard_name table from the matrix of physical quantities and species. But then, exactly this should probably be the task of the ACC community and that burden should be taken off the shoulders of the CF group? More specifically: I believe what the panel should agree on is (1) the general syntax as desribed above (2) a list of accepted <physical_quantity> (3) a list of <medium> (4) a list of <process> (5) some concept of constituent naming (here, I believe we have already pretty much agreed to make use of familiar terms while at the same time trying to follow IUPAC where possible. In my viewe this would mean that if two or more terms are in use and the IUPAC term is among them, then the IUPAC term should be given preference) Once this is agreed, the ACC sub-panel should get together and define the species list (this then goes back to the GRIB2 proposal) and defien the rules for constructing the actual standard_name table (including of course a test run and evaluation of the result). John/Alison/et al.: what you need to decide then is whether you want to add all of these names to the "one-page-html" table or how the plethora of chemistry names shall be managed. Best regards, Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH 52425 Juelich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir'in Baerbel Brumme-Bothe Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr. Harald Bolt, Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata