On May 27, 2010, at 09:17, Jonathan Gregory wrote: >> 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.
Can we clarify the meaning of 'alias' again? To me it has value as an unambiguous mapping. This is clearly not in that category. Even without the alias, your statement is still true (future data will be unambiguous but no penalty is imposed on older data). I'd like to think use of the older term could be deprecated, but it would stay in the list. Also, thinking out loud a little: Regarding the two directional terms, is the implication that any directional terms may now also have the opposite term? I was wondering if a minus sign achieves the same end (that is, a negative value for surface_upward_mole_flux_* can be treated as downward mole flux). A guideline about when it is and isn't appropriate to include a directional component might be useful, if not already present. John _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
