The original proposal was to include names that have been rejected by
CF for being "too specialized" - these would be permanent parts of the
project vocabulary, not deprecated.
Many in situ instruments produce non-geophysical variables that fall
into this category; although this isn't what Martin had in mind, his
proposal - or something along the same lines - would help us get to
a standard naming scheme for this kind of data too.
- Nan
So my proposal was to create a vocabulary, or more precisely an RDF
store, that lets us:
1) declare a name that may be proposed as a CF candidate
2) make a statement that the name has been (or even 'is being')
submitted to CF for consideration
3a) make a statement that the name has been accepted as a CF name,
and therefore is deprecated as a proposed name
3b) make a statement that the name has been rejected as a CF name,
and therefore is deprecated as a proposed name
In either 3a or 3b,
4) make a statement that the replacement representation of the name
is xyz in some other vocabulary
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
*******************************************************
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
