I would wait till people have a use case that can drive specific names. > On May 9, 2016, at 8:00 AM, Signell, Richard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dave, > Do you think we should also introduce other water_volume_transport > quantities together to make this clear? > > water_volume_transport_in_river_channel > water_volume_transport_over_land > water_volume_transport_in_??? > > -Rich > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:14 AM, David Blodgett <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CF-metadata mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > > -- > Dr. Richard P. Signell (508) 457-2229 > USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd. > Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
