Dear Daniel I see. So the new names would be of the form mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air I think that might be liable to misunderstanding. It could mean the mass concentration of the ammonium within the aerosol particles, rather than within the air. Your earlier suggestion mass_concentration_of_particulate_ammonium_in_air does not have that drawback.
Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann <[email protected]> ----- > Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:46:55 +0100 > From: Daniel Neumann <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Clarifying standard names for > 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles' > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 > Thunderbird/52.5.0 > > Dear Jonathan, > > >OK. If experts are unanimous in their conviction that the existing names will > >never be needed for the meaning that they appear to have, I agree that they > >should become aliases of the new names, which convey the correct meaning. > >I'm sure this change could be made. > Great. > > >Alison Pamment is in charge of the updates > >as you know and I expect she will consider as it soon as she has time. I > >think > >that a complete list of the new and old names would be useful - that may > >already be in one of your emails, perhaps. > I didn't include a full list yet. I will create one and send it > around the next days. > > After reading one of the past mailing list posts again and talking > to a former colleague: it might be better to just include an "_in_" > between "X" and "dry_aerosol_particles" in the new names (and maybe > remove aerosol) instead of creating names like > "...particulate_X_in_air". This first version with "_in_" is better > expandable, when particle size fractions like PM10 should be > considered in future (like > "..._X_in_PM10_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air"). > > Thank you very much. > > Best, > Daniel > > > >Best wishes and thanks > > > >Jonathan > > > >----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann > ><[email protected]> ----- > > > >>Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:07:45 +0100 > >>From: Daniel Neumann <[email protected]> > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for > >> 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles' > >>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 > >> Thunderbird/52.5.0 > >> > >>Dear Jonathan, > >> > >>>I understand. That's tricky, [...] > >>Yes :-) . > >> > >> > >>>We could define apple to mean orange in > >>>future, for the sake of the existing datasets, > >>>but only if we are certain that no-one will > >>>ever want to talk about apples. > >>I am not aware of any situation in which someone actually meant to > >>talk about apples. Markus Fiebig from the World Data Centre for > >>Aerosols wrote the same > >>(http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2017/059588.html). > >>I talked to two former colleagues, who confirmed it as well. > >>Therefore, it is quite save to assume that nobody talks about > >>apples. > >> > >> > >>>We could just define and start using the new names, > >>>and be aware that the CMIP5 datasets used the > >>>wrong names (because the CF process somehow > >>>made a mistake), without defining aliases. Would > >>>that be acceptable? > >>With respect to my personal usage of the respective standard names I > >>am fine with just defining new standard names. I also see that it is > >>the simplest solution for the moment considering the work effort > >>needed to additionally define aliases. > >> > >>But, we might run into trouble (and cause confusion), if both > >>standard names - apple and orange - are used to describe oranges. > >>People, who used "apple" in the past, probably keep using "apple" to > >>describe oranges because they are not aware of the changes. People > >>who look up standard names for their new data sets might also end up > >>with "apple" for describing an orange if "apple" is not marked as > >>deprecated. Also people comparing data sets following the old and > >>the new conventions (e.g. CMIP5 and CMIP6) might not be aware of > >>this discussion. Hence, I would prefer to define aliases. > >> > >>Would it be feasible with respect to the required work, to define > >>aliases for all the ambiguous standard names? How could I support > >>this process? There seem to be 100 to 110 standard names involved: > >> > >> - atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles (15) > >> - tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles* > >>(78, maybe less) > >> - mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air (15) > >> - tendency_of_mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air (1) > >> > >> > >>Best, > >>Daniel > >> > >> > >> > >>On 03.01.2018 14:40, Jonathan Gregory wrote: > >>>Dear Daniel > >>> > >>>>>>Is it feasible to rename all affected standard names? > >>>>>It would be feasible (using aliases) but is it necessary? It seems to me > >>>>>that > >>>>>your question has identified that there should be a distinction between > >>>>>e.g. > >>>>> mass_concentration_of_particulate_X_in_air > >>>>>and > >>>>> mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air > >>>>>for X=ammonium etc. These are different quantities: the former refers to > >>>>>the > >>>>>mass of ammonium only, the latter to the dry mass of the aerosol of that > >>>>>type. > >>>>>That is, we need new names for CMIP6, not aliases. > >>>>Yes, there should be a distinction between both standard names. > >>>>However, the latter name has been used as synonym for the first name > >>>>up till now (e.g. in CMIP5 or in a data set I published recently). > >>>>Additionally, the latter name has no real application - at least I > >>>>am not aware of an application (neither for model nor for > >>>>measurement data). Therefore, it might be reasonable for backward > >>>>compatibility to use aliases. > >>>I understand. That's tricky, because we've established that the second name > >>>is a valid concept but not correct. When we use aliases, it's because we've > >>>decided on a clearer, more consistent or more precise formulation of the > >>>name, but in this case, it seemed that we called something an apple when > >>>it ought to have been called an orange. We could define apple to mean > >>>orange > >>>in future, for the sake of the existing datasets, but only if we are > >>>certain > >>>that no-one will ever want to talk about apples. > >>> > >>>We could just define and start using the new names, and be aware that the > >>>CMIP5 datasets used the wrong names (because the CF process somehow made a > >>>mistake), without defining aliases. Would that be acceptable? > >>> > >>>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 > >----- 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 ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
