...@bodc.ac.uk]
Envoyé : jeudi 2 décembre 2010 17:53
À : Jonathan Gregory
Cc : Lauret Olivier; Laurence Crosnier; cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu; Cristina
Tronconi; Bruce Hackett; o.go...@met.no; Thomas LOUBRIEU; Lia Santoleri;
Philippe Garnesson
Objet : RE: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour
Garnesson;
frederic.me...@jrc.it
Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour and iceberg
concentration
Hi all,
Thanks, that's fine.
That is to say that
· number_content_of_icebergs (m-2) becomes
number_of_icebergs_per_unit_area
Is that right?
About the other
Dear all,
MyOcean project needs your help again.
We have identified a few variables which have no equivalent within CF
classification. This is quite problematic for us, as ordering and downloading
netCDF dataset is based on CF reference.
Then we propose to extend CF standard name table
Dear Olivier
number_content_of_icebergs (m-2)
That is consistent with existing names and makes sense but it's a bit
surprising, don't you think? Because icebergs are so large, it doesn't seem
obvious to talk about the number content of them; that idea is more applicable
to microscopic
Santoleri; Philippe Garnesson
Objet : RE: [CF-metadata] Standard name request for ocean colour and iceberg
concentration
Hello Jonathan,
I had the same gut reaction as you and almost came up with the same response
until I read the definition Content indicates a quantity per unit area on 369
I had the same gut reaction as you and almost came up with the same response
until I read the definition Content indicates a quantity per unit area on
369 Standard Names. So, perhaps Olivier is being consistent and tha handful
of 'per_unit_area Standard Names are not.
I think Olivier is
