Dear Andy > In this case "dominant" (which infers a method of calculation) is not the > same as "primary" (which is used in the existing wave standard names to > denote ranking of swell components). However, I agree we could omit the > "dominant" to bring this more in line with other wave directions, and provide > metadata to determine the method of calculation elsewhere - that would enable > a more flexible approach....
Good. I agree. In that case, do you still need a new standard name for the direction of the slope? Maybe you could use the existing sea_surface_wave_to_direction for this purpose? > sea_surface_wave_mean_square_slope_parallel_to_direction > sea_surface_wave_mean_square_slope_normal_to_direction I agree that the "to" here could be misunderstood. That's not your fault, of course, but due to our peculiar use of "to" as a sort of adjective! > I guess an alternative would be to use _along/_across instead of > _parallel_to/_normal_to? There are some existing names containing across_line, where "across" means "normal to", so it would be consistent to use that word. There aren't any existing names containing normal, perpendicular, along or parallel. I suggest > sea_surface_wave_mean_square_slope_along_wave_to_direction > sea_surface_wave_mean_square_slope_across_wave_to_direction which might alleviate the ambiguity, perhaps? Or maybe we don't need to include the "to" in any case for waves. Does the same ambiguity exist, when talking about waves, as we have with winds being eastward or easterly etc.? Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
