Dear John and Alison I think the definition of limitation is fine for the names. However I do still have a slight concern that "limitation" alone is not a very self-explanatory term for the non-expert. Would it be possible and acceptable to say growth_limitation instead? Another possible way to make the names easier to parse might be to use due_to e.g. solar_irradiance_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton could be growth_limitation_of_miscellaneous_phytoplankton_due_to_solar_irradiance Would that still be comprehensible to an expert?
> I think we're agreed that the abiotic names are needed, and if I've > understood correctly we seem to have agreed to stick with > due_to_abiotic_component because it works for all the names where it's used, > including ph names. Is that right? I think so. Apart from the pH names, we could say abiotic_carbon, I think, which is a bit neater - I don't know whether it's preferable for an expert. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
