Dear Paul You have raised two issues.
* Preference for X_change to change_in_X. * Suggestion that any X could have _change suffixed without being approved as a new standard name. I think the first doesn't have a clear answer. It's a bit arbitrary. I would say that change_in is probably clearer, although a bit longer, because concatenating too many nouns can get a bit difficult or ambiguous to understand in English. But we do have some long noun phrases in the stdname table. I don't think there's a compelling need to change (sorry) our convention, myself. We have discussed quite a lot of similar cases to the second point already, and have so far always decided that even though it is desirable to construct stdnames consistently, we will always approve them individually and manually rather than automatically. That is because sometimes there's more than one way to describe a quantity, so consistency is not unique, or because some automatically constructed names might actually be physical nonsense, or because there may be a common unsystematic term we'd prefer to adopt. Therefore discussion about this issue has been concerned with providing tools to make it easier to construct proposed standard names consistently. You're only asking for three names, I think, which is not a big deal really. The standard name table has over 2000 entries already so 3 more isn't going to cause indigestion. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
