Dear Randy > what about area_fraction_defined_by_solar_zenith_angle ? > > "defined_by" exists in a couple of other standard names.
That's a good idea. I *almost* like it! In fact all the stdnames with this phrase have ocean_mixed_layer_thickness_defined_by_X. This is almost the same situation, but it doesn't seem exactly the same to me. The ocean ML is a a distinct concept qualitatively; the defined_by_X says precisely how it is defined quantitatively, in some cases using a (non-spatiotemporal) coordinate value as we are in the present case. In this case, we are not defining area_fraction. We are specifying an area_ fraction for a particular value of something else. I think defined_by would be just right if the stdname was area_fraction_of_night_defined_by_solar_ zenith_angle. That would be exactly analogous to the ML case, I feel; the night area fraction is a recognisable concept, but it needs to be defined precisely. We could include defined_by if we reverted to three stdnames, as Randy had proposed, area_fraction_of_X_defined_by_solar_zenith_angle, where X is day, night or twilight (if that's the right word), and the defined_by phrase is a signal that one shouldn't assume what day or night means without checking the bounds provided for the zenith angle. We already have a generic standard name of area_fraction. This is expected to have a (string-valued auxiliary) coordinate of area_type, as it stands. We could allow it alternatively to have a coordinate of solar_zenith_angle. There would be no indication of what it depended on in the standard name. If we want to indicate that, what about area_fraction_with_given_solar_zenith_angle That's another variation on the theme! Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
