[CF-metadata] Getting back to ensembles
j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk
Mon Dec 11 16:00:01 MST 2006
> Finally, following Alison's summary posting and in agreement to Jamie's
> comment, if the standard name option is not going to be used to describe
> the metadata of the forecast systems and "ensembles" as a standard name
> issue is already closed, where do we stand now? Do we need to propose a
> list of names for the "standard_metadata" attribute? There are no
> external vocabularies available in the medium-range, monthly, seasonal
> and interannual forecasting communities.
I also feel that we haven't reached a satisfactory resolution of this. I
haven't had time properly to digest Alison's recent lengthy summary of many
issue (for which thanks) but I had the impression that there wasn't widespread
objection to adopting the four attribute names mentioned as standard names.
I can see that there could be a distinction to be made between standard_names
for physical quantities and non-physical categories, but I'm not convinced of
the need for it; I think introducing an alternative to standard_names, with a
very similar function, is unnecessary complexity in the standard. Did anyone
else have views on this issue?
We clearly need to agree how to conclude these debates. In the past, we have
attempted to achieve consensus, which comes about when any minorities are won
over by better arguments. This takes work. If we reach an impasse, we may have
to decide by majority, but in that case we can only do so when the alternatives
have been laid out and people invited to vote.
More information about the CF-metadata