Dear Philip
> It looks like your grammar analyzer identified the following entities in
> error:
>
> sulfate_dry_aerosol and sulfur_dry_aerosol
>
> I assume that your grammar analyzer picked this up from standard names of the
> following form:
>
> atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_express
Hi Jonathan,
It looks like your grammar analyzer identified the following entities in error:
sulfate_dry_aerosol and sulfur_dry_aerosol
I assume that your grammar analyzer picked this up from standard names of the
following form:
atmosphere_mass_content_of_sulfate_expressed_as_sulfur_dry_a
Hi Jonathan,
In quickly looking over your updated grammar page, I noticed that the
_due_to_(phenomenon) section contained the following:
from icebergs
from rivers
from rivers and surface downward water flux
Would it make sense to move these to the (preposition)(medium) section?
Best w
Dear Jonathan
> > downwelling_mole_flux instead? I think "sinking" and "downwelling"
> > mean the same thing, and "downwelling" was already in the lexicon.
>
> The two definitions have different reference frames - Sinking is a
> velocity relative to the fluid, while downwelling is a velocity of
Hi Jonathan,
Here are some thoughts:
> * We have introduced the phrase sinking_mole_flux. Could that be
> downwelling_mole_flux instead? I think "sinking" and "downwelling"
> mean the
> same thing, and "downwelling" was already in the lexicon.
The two definitions have different reference frames
Dear all
In preparing the grammar for CF standard names for version 13 of the table,
I made proposals to modify various existing standard names. These proposals
apply to version 14 as well, and I repeat them below. In addition, version 14
raises some new issues. These are questions that I didn't t
Dear all
Encouraged by comments on my standard name grammar, I have updated it for
version 14 of the standard name table, published yesterday. Doing the update
was an interesting exercise. Initially most of the new names could not be
parsed, but it was fairly straightforward to add new phrases to
Dear Martin et al
Some quantities are so specific to a particular dataset or model that it would
not be worth the effect of defining a standard name for them, since they will
never be compared with data from another source, the main reason for standard
names being to indicate which quantities shou
Dear All,
The 'fast track' approach being discussed has promise and is pretty much in
line with the ISO vocabulary model (in which terms have proposed, accepted,
deprecated or deleted) used in resources like the GEMET thesaurus. However,
there are important details to consider, such as version
