Dear Martin and Angelika Your proposal looks very careful and sensible to me. The new chemical species and processes will fit the existing patterns. I support the use of tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X
One comment, though. Since all the processes are due_to_emission_from_Y, where Y is a sector of activity, I would like the raise the question of whether it would be a good idea to keep Y out of the standard name and store it in some other fashion, probably a [scalar] coordinate variable? As usual, this is a question about an essentially arbitrary boundary. We decided not to do it with chemical species in order to make sure everything makes sense chemically in standard names, but perhaps in order to limit the number of standard_names we might factor out this new distinction? An analogy would be with area_type and region, which we have now generalised in this way (though some area_types of particular importance do appear in standard names). I can imagine there could be a practical advantage of being able to contain the emissions of a particular species from all the sectors in a single data variable, if Y were made a dimension. Another reason is that the Y are getting some way from being "geophysical", which is the core purpose of standard_name descriptions. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
