On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Would it make sense to add a new standard table "plant_functional_type" or is this overkill? What do others have to say about this? > > Best wishes > > 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
