I like the idea of appending "growth" to those limitation names - makes sense.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jonathan Gregory <[email protected] > wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
