Dear Balaji > I understand it's blurry, and I suppose all I'm > arguing for is some general vigilance against proliferation of > names.
I completely agree with that sentiment! The blurriness comes in places where coordinates are discrete, from a permissible set, such as area_types. This was done to avoid proliferation of standard names, and because it can be convenient to have a dimension of area_type. I don't think there are the same advantages in the case of height above ground vs height above geoid - there's only a small handful of different species of height and they are not likely to be wanted as group together in a data variable. > (BTW when are we going to see a standard_name with "barystatic" in it?) Good question! I hope that if it happens it's because of global mean sea level change rather than "Star Trek" invading the CF convention. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
