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.
While the end product of CF Conventions is to create specific metadata to be placed in data files, I think we often limit our thinking to the rather small set of representational forms that can be encoded into the netCDF-3 (aka classic) data model.
To be specific, standard names are limited to being represented as char attributes, and so our dialogue about them sometimes seems limited to sequential "flat space" concepts. Of course actually we have an extremely rich associative semantic linkage in our minds.
The idea, for me, would be to look for some richer representations of the associations
and relationships between standard quantities, which could accelerate the process of
constructing them. We can then decide if we want to encode these in a netcdf file using a
single standard_name attribute and/or multiple "standard_name_component"
attributes, auxiliary coordinates, common concepts, or even (god forbid) rdf triples.
So I think we should start trying out different representations, and not make
any big decisions, until/unless we have something that we like.
Ok, I lied about the rfd triples inside of netcdf, that's not ok. ;^)
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
