Dear Etienne If you need more area_types to be defined, such as the ones you list, that should be fine:
> Water > Evergreen Needleleaf forest > Evergreen Broadleaf forest > Deciduous Needleleaf forest ... etc. To have the same look as the existing ones and standard names, I guess we would put them in as evergreen_needleleaf_forest, etc. I am sure it was expeced that types such as these would be put into the area_types table. > As many models can have different PFTs, depending on their complexity, > I don't see an advantage in making a standard name table for this, > because its use would be limited. > Although, if the list is comprehensive enough, it should be sufficient > for all needs It could be an advantage in that it would standardise the use of certain phrases for certain PFTs, like the area_type table and the region table. However, I agree that it is not essential. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
