Martin, On 04/04/2011 09:37 AM, Schultz, Martin wrote: > if this is the direction to take, then we will need several "expressed_as" > standard_names for atmospheric chemistry. Typical example: volatile organic > compounds are often "expressed as" mass mixing ratio based on either their > molecular mass or in "grams C" which counts only the mass of the C atoms > (because this is what counts in the sense that it ultimately produces CO2 at > the end of the reaction chain). Hence, one would need things like > "mass_mixing_ratio_of_ethane_in_air_expressed_as_carbon_mass" and many > similar ones. You can do the same with nitogen for species like NO, NO2, > HNO3, N2O, etc.
Not necessarily. If you have an ambiguous physical quantity (i.e., one that can be expressed in multiple -- but incompatible -- units), then you should be able to use its "unit" attribute to refine its meaning. Note that the "unit" attribute could still be "clean" (i.e., without attached information). > Still, there may then be a need to define "readable units" which would be > obtained from the combination of standard_name and units. I do sympathize > with people who prefer to read "nmol mol-1" on a plot rather than "1" (or > "1.e-9" in this case). Indeed. In my opinion, every display application should allow the user to specify non-default output units. Regards, Steve Emmerson _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
