All,
Nan's point deserves consideration. Well-chosen names should help the
uninitiated to understand the concepts that CF is encoding.
"Realization" is arguably the opposite sort of term; the sort of term
that clicks as being sensible only _after_ one understands the range of
concepts that can be encoded by CF. In the spirit of usability testing
for user interfaces, the measure of quality should not be whether the UI
(or terminology) seems sensible to the designers; it should be whether
the UI leads the uninitiated user to proper understanding. Nan's
comment speaks to that point.
Doesn't "ensemble_member_identifier" seem to be a more self-evident term
that would better enable a new-comer to grasp the contents of a CF
ensemble dataset? Admittedly, a small point ....
- Steve
========================================
Nan Galbraith wrote:
Hi All -
The term realization is, apparently, *perfectly* clear to you
modelers, but it conveys no information at all to me.
Since it looks like it's going to be adopted, I hope you'll provide
a really clear definition in the standard - something that even an
oceanographer will understand.
Thanks!
- Nan
John Caron wrote:
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
Dear all
"realization" is fine as a standard name. I had forgotten we had
introduced it.
I withdraw my suggestion of ensemble_member_identifier.
Thus, the standard name (of realization) can be used to identify an
ensemble
axis. I think that providing an axis attribute as well could be
helpful: with
spatiotemporal axes we have both methods of identification, and it
is possible
there might be ensemble axes in which realization was a not a good
choice of
standard name.
--
Steve Hankin, NOAA/PMEL -- [email protected]
7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070
ph. (206) 526-6080, FAX (206) 526-6744
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men
to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
