So, anytime I see the word 'type' in a variable name, it catches my eye -- it usually indicates a concept that exists but hasn't been named. (Because there was *some* reason for grouping the clouds that way, right?)
In this case, I know pretty much nothing about clouds, but it looks to me like the concept may be altitude or height. If that were true I would much prefer 'high_altitude_cloud_area_fraction' and so on. Or whatever the right concept is. John On May 7, 2012, at 01:29, Heiko Klein wrote: > Dear Jonathan, > > I just had a short side-discussion with Eizi, and we settled on 'type', i.e. > we propose the standard names: > > high_type_cloud_area_fraction > middle_type_cloud_area_fraction > low_type_cloud_area_fraction > > > As explanatory text, the one of cloud_area_fraction is a good start, and then > an addition like: > > high type clouds are: Cirrus, Cirrostratus, Cirrocumulus > middle type clouds are: Altostratus, Altocumulus, Nimbostratus > low type clouds are: Stratus, Stratocumulus, Cumulus, Cumulonimbus > > Best regards, > > Heiko > > On 2012-04-27 17:30, Jonathan Gregory wrote: >> Dear Eizi and Heiko >> >> I think this kind of idea is good >>>> high_genera_cloud_area_fraction: >> etc. >> >> "type" or "genera" would both be OK, but "genera" is a plural so better >> English >> would probably be "type" (or "genus"). >> >> Cheers >> >> Jonathan > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
