Hi Roy, For sure, I wasn't proposing use of the word 'sorl', that was merely an examplar. My argument was that since there appears to be no existing term for what you want to describe - at least none without overloaded meaning(s) - then just invent a completely new word. So, yes, by its very nature it wouldn't be well-known on day 1!
Cheers, Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: Lowry, Roy K [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 23 February 2010 11:19 > To: Bentley, Philip > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] water level with/without datum > > Hi Phil, > > Jonathan's argument against 'water body' was that it was not > as well-known as 'sea'. I think that the argument applies > even more strongly to 'sorl'. > > Cheers, Roy. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bentley, Philip [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 23 February 2010 09:25 > To: Lowry, Roy K > Cc: [email protected] > 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 someone > thought, I know, I'll call it a 'lake'. Or whatever the > latin/greek equivalent was back then! > > So we might choose, say, the word 'sorl', this being an > acronym for seas, oceans, rivers and lakes. Sure that's not > very pretty but no doubt someone can think of a better word. > Answers on an e-postcard... _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
