Dear Roy It's also fine to discuss things on the email list. GitHub is replacing trac as the platform for proposals to change the convention.
> I totally disagree with this statement, which was similar to the one I > received a couple of years ago. The way names should be defined should be > based on what makes the most sense and is most consistent with present > practice (such as how are climatologies defined - to me anomalies are the > flip side of climatologies), not present day convenience. At the present > time it may be easier, but in the long-run it is asking for problems. We could indicate that it was an anomaly by using a different attribute from the standard_name attribute. I agree that would work, but putting it in the standard name works equally well. It is usual, in ordinary language, to say that a quantity is "sea surface temperature anomaly", for example. Since there are only a few use-cases, it seems to me that there is not a strong argument for adding a new mechanism to the convention, which is a greater complexity. If the situation changed, then we could think again. We don't try too much to anticipate what could go wrong before there is evidence that it will go wrong, or is already going wrong, in the development of the CF convention, in order to keep it as simple as possible. Best wishes Jonathan _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
