I am cross posting with regard to ticket #89 (https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/89)
This comment: https://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/89#comment:4 presents a choice, which I encourage interested parties to state their view on, either on the ticket or by e-mail to myself and Jonathan. > Replying to jonathan: > > Dear Mark > > > > It could be argued that this relaxation does involve a change to the > > interpretation of existing data, because where archived data says "x" it > > might currently be assumed that this means it is definitely not "eastward". > > Once this change was made, you could not assume that any more. > > You are correct, this reinterpretation is a consequence of the proposal. > > > I think we may be trying to be too subtle with the interpretation. I would > > argue that this is a straightforward choice. Either we decide that in > > existing (and new) standard names "x" is allowed even when "x" happens to > > coincide with "east" (what you propose), or we decide that this is not > > allowed (in which case I can't see how to provide what you need except by > > using new standard names). > > I agree with the way you state the 'simple choice'. I think that this ticket > indicates the implications of allowing 'x' when 'x' happens to be 'east'. I > might describe it as 'just subtle enough' but that's just my perspective. > > > I also fear that few people apart from you and me are listening to this > > conversation, since trac tickets aren't widely distributed, as we know. > > Therefore, although it's where you started, I suggest that you might try > > again on the email list, presenting the question as a simple Yes/No choice, > > and inviting subscribers to the list to reply "Yes" or "No"! > > Hopefully Jeff's change will mean that this posting will also appear on the > mailing list. Therefore I ask that people with an interest express their > 'yes' or 'no', either on this ticket, or via email to mark.hedley at > metoffice.gov.uk and j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk to this proposal. > > If the consensus is not to accept this interpretation then my next step will > be to request a large number of new standard names which extensively overlap > with the current standard names, which I feel causes many more issues than > the reinterpretation proposed here. > > for example: > > xward_wind: "x" indicates a vector component along the grid x-axis, where > this may or may not be true longitude, positive with increasing x. Wind is > defined as a two-dimensional (horizontal) air velocity vector, with no > vertical component. (Vertical motion in the atmosphere has the standard name > upward_air_velocity.) many thanks mark _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
