Dear Alison Thank you for your careful consideration.
> 2) inorganic_phosphorus|phosphate and inorganic_silicon|silicate I appreciate your arguments but I do not have the expertise to decide. Perhaps John will come to the rescue. > 5) large_scale and stratiform > > There are only 13 names referring to 'large_scale' and it strikes me as > being a modelling jargon term, so I propose to create aliases to change > them all to use 'stratiform'. Do you agree? Yes. So does Mark Webb. > 6) surface_carbon_dioxide_mole_flux > > I suggest adding two new names of > surface_upward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide and > surface_downward_mole_flux_of_carbon_dioxide and making > surface_carbon_dioxide_mole_flux an alias of both. That way, any data > written in the future will be unambiguous but we won't be imposing a > (possibly) incorrect interpretation onto older data. What do others > think? It would be unprecedented to create an alias with two translations, I think. If that's OK, I agree it is a logical solution. > 7) surface snow > > In the case of snow_temperature -> temperature_in_snow did you mean that > it should be changed to temperature_in_surface_snow? I didn't, but I agree that would be more consistent, if acceptable and if it makes sense to you. > I am wondering about the interpretation of the existing names > snow_density and snow_grain_size. I suppose these could equally apply > to snow as a species or as a medium, but I wonder if they are primarily > intended as surface snow quantities? Currently neither has any > definition and I think we should try to give some explanation as to how > these names are meant to be used. I am pretty sure they are currently used for lying snow. I agree with your other points and decisions. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
