Dear Daniel and Steve In fact there are over 600 standard_names with the word "content", which is used to mean "something" per unit area. I agree it's not self-evident that it would be "per unit area" but it's convenient and consistent.
Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann <[email protected]> ----- > Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:26:09 +0200 > From: Daniel Neumann <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for > 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles' > User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.3 > > Dear Steve, > > I agree that standard name "atmosphere_mass_content_*" is not > self-descriptive. It is not clear from its name (but the description > clarifies it!) whether it is the mass content either with respect to > a column with given base area or with respect to the whole > atmosphere. > > "atmosphere_mass_content_*" seems to be quite established as term in > the CF standard names (200+ by number). I am not sure whether it is > reasonable to change all these names? Which alternative term would > you suggest? > > For "mass_concentration_*_in_air" I do not see this problem. The > document, which you linked, points out that one should not use > 'concentration of X' because it could be a molar or mass > concentration (or something else). Therefore, the physical quantity > in the numerator should be used as prefix. > > Regards, > Daniel > > > > Am 2017-08-14 20:39, schrieb Steven Emmerson: > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Neumann > ><[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>Steve, > >> > >>Thank you for your comment. > >> > >>I am not sure whether I got the comment correct: It does not become > >>clear which mass per which volume is described by > >>"mass_concentration_of_X_in_dry_aerosol_in_air"? You mean ambiguity > >>whether it is either 'mass of X' in the volume of > >>'dry_aerosol_in_air' of 'only mass of X, which is in dry aerosol' in > >>the volume of 'air'? With respect to the guide you linked: it does > >>not become what 'B' actually is? Thus, I should re-think the order > >>and the connecting prepositions? > >> > >>Or do want to point out that the terms "atmosphere_mass_content_*" > >>and "mass_concentration_*_in_air" might be problematic in general? > > > >The latter. > > > >Regards, > >Steve Emmerson > > -- > Daniel Neumann > > Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemuende > Physical Oceanography and Instrumentation > Seestrasse 15 > 18119 Rostock > Germany > > phone: +49-381-5197-287 > fax: +49-381-5197-114 or 440 > e-mail: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > 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
