+1 > On May 3, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear Dave > > I see, thanks. That makes sense. However, if you don't need to make such > distinctions yet, you could just have "in_river" for the moment, which may be > better because it's simpler. Later on, if needed, you could propose further > standard names with more qualifications. It's fine to provide both general > and specific standard names, for different purposes. > > Best wishes > > Jonathan > > ----- Forwarded message from David Blodgett <[email protected]> ----- > >> Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 09:14:29 -0500 >> From: David Blodgett <[email protected]> >> To: Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> >> CC: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Proposed standard_name for river discharge >> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5) >> >> I actually suggested ‘in river channel’ to rich because of the potential to >> segregate into flow in fluvial sediments below the channel or in a >> floodplain disconnected from the channel, etc. >> >> Cheers! >> >> - Dave >> >>> On May 3, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Rich >>> >>>> How about a new standard_name called: >>>> >>>> "water_volume_transport_in_river_channel" >>>> >>>> with canonical units "m3/s" ? >>> >>> That's certainly a reasonable quantity to give a name too. Is "channel" >>> necessary? >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Jonathan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CF-metadata mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata >> > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > _______________________________________________ > 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
