Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for NEMO ocean model output

2017-04-27 Thread Lowry, Roy K. 
Dear All,


My preference (but not insistence) would be for the more compact versions 
providing steric, halosteric and thermosteric are clearly described in the 
definitions. This is cleaner, less confusing, consistent with past practice, 
more likely to be discovered and readily understandable by those who are likely 
to need to use the Standard Names.


If this is unacceptable to anybody then I'm in total agreement with Jonathan 
that we need to be consistent with existing Standard Names incorporating 
'sterics', which means including both forms and aliasing them.


Note that established practice over the past decade has caused 'alias' to come 
to mean 'deprecated and replaced by' rather than 'synonym'. Consequently, if 
going for the option of adding both forms and replacing the existing 'sterics' 
then the 'sterics' need to be the 'deprecates' and the 'due-tos' need to be the 
replacements in all cases.


Cheers, Roy.


Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 
hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in 
the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to enquir...@bodc.ac.uk. 
Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.



From: CF-metadata  on behalf of Sebastien 
Villaume 
Sent: 27 April 2017 09:16
To: Jonathan Gregory
Cc: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for NEMO ocean model output

Dear all,

I am not a domain expert, I can't really grasp which set of names is more 
suitable. As a non expert, I would favour the first set because it is more 
explicit.

That said, I will follow what the domain experts and/or the standard names 
experts would recommend. Please let us know so we can agree and start using 
these names.


Best wishes,
/Sébastien

- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Gregory" 
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 26 April, 2017 22:36:14
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for NEMO ocean model output

Dear Sebastien

> @Jonathan: what would be the standard names if we were using 
> "_due_to_change_in_" ? Since it is a "change" of height due to a "change" of 
> a physical property, we end up with:
>
> change_in_sea_surface_height_due_to_change_in_sea_water_density
> change_in_sea_surface_height_due_to_change_in_sea_water_practical_salinity
> change_in_sea_surface_height_due_to_change_in_sea_water_temperature

Yes, I agree, that would be right.

> It is fine for me but I understand it could look awkward to some 
> users/experts. It is however nicely verbose to help understand what those 
> parameters are.
>
> If we were removing "_above_sea_floor" from the names proposed by Alison:
>
> steric_change_in_sea_surface_height
> halosteric_change_in_sea_surface_height
> thermosteric_change_in_sea_surface_height
>
> it is more compact and elegant but it could be a bit cryptic to non-experts.

Yes, I agree with this too. As I mentioned, thermosteric and steric do appear
in existing names (one each), so we should either rename those with due_to, or
use the steric terms here, for consistency.

> I am fine with both formulations and I agree with Kevin, we could keep both 
> versions and make aliases.

I am fine too with either of them, but not with aliases for this purpose. We
use aliases to preserve backwards-compatibility when we change our minds, not
to provide synonyms in the first place.

Best wishes

Jonathan
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
CF-metadata Info Page - 
mailman.cgd.ucar.edu
mailman.cgd.ucar.edu
This is an unmoderated list for discussions about interpretation, 
clarification, and proposals for extensions or change to the CF conventions.



___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
CF-metadata Info Page - 
mailman.cgd.ucar.edu
mailman.cgd.ucar.edu
This is an unmoderated list for discussions about interpretation, 
clarification, and proposals for extensions or change to the CF conventions.




This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject 
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any 
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under 
the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records 
management system.

___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for NEMO ocean model output

2017-04-27 Thread Sebastien Villaume 
Dear all,

I am not a domain expert, I can't really grasp which set of names is more 
suitable. As a non expert, I would favour the first set because it is more 
explicit. 

That said, I will follow what the domain experts and/or the standard names 
experts would recommend. Please let us know so we can agree and start using 
these names.


Best wishes,
/Sébastien

- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Gregory" 
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 26 April, 2017 22:36:14
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard names for NEMO ocean model output

Dear Sebastien

> @Jonathan: what would be the standard names if we were using 
> "_due_to_change_in_" ? Since it is a "change" of height due to a "change" of 
> a physical property, we end up with:
> 
> change_in_sea_surface_height_due_to_change_in_sea_water_density
> change_in_sea_surface_height_due_to_change_in_sea_water_practical_salinity
> change_in_sea_surface_height_due_to_change_in_sea_water_temperature

Yes, I agree, that would be right.

> It is fine for me but I understand it could look awkward to some 
> users/experts. It is however nicely verbose to help understand what those 
> parameters are.
> 
> If we were removing "_above_sea_floor" from the names proposed by Alison:
> 
> steric_change_in_sea_surface_height
> halosteric_change_in_sea_surface_height
> thermosteric_change_in_sea_surface_height
> 
> it is more compact and elegant but it could be a bit cryptic to non-experts.

Yes, I agree with this too. As I mentioned, thermosteric and steric do appear
in existing names (one each), so we should either rename those with due_to, or
use the steric terms here, for consistency.

> I am fine with both formulations and I agree with Kevin, we could keep both 
> versions and make aliases. 

I am fine too with either of them, but not with aliases for this purpose. We
use aliases to preserve backwards-compatibility when we change our minds, not
to provide synonyms in the first place.

Best wishes

Jonathan
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
___
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata