[CF-metadata] [Fwd: Re: standard name proposal for CCMVal]

[Martin Juckes]

Dear Jonathan,
>
> Dear Martin
> 
> > I'd like to respond to Jonathan's suggestion that the CCMVal names should 
use
> > atmosphere_moles_of_X instead of the proposed atmosphere_X_mole_burden.
> > It is not clear to me that atmosphere_moles_of_X is clearer in any way. 
There 
> > is nothing in the name which says it is not the mole_fraction.
> 
> > ... they could just have easily used "moles of X in the atmosphere", 
> 
> To me, atmosphere_moles_of_X means moles_of_X_in_atmosphere - doesn't it
> to you? I wouldn't understand atmosphere_moles_of_X to mean mole fraction.
> I think moles_of_X_in_atmosphere would be perfectly clear. We could use 
> that,
> although it is a different kind of construction from other standard names.
> However, clarity is the most important objective.

I agree that clarity is important. As I said before, I don't think your 
proposal is clearer. Perhaps you could say why you think it is clearer?

> 
> > but given that they have I think there is a strong argument for following 
> > their example (though using atmosphere instead of atmospheric for 
consistency 
> > with existing practice in the standard name list),
> 
> Using existing terminology is a strong argument, I agree, but clarity is 
> even
> more important, I think. 

Yes

> Would moles_of_X_in_atmosphere be more self- 
> explanatory than atmosphere_mole_burden_of_X?
>

I don't think so -- sorry. What is your reasoning?
 
> Cheers
> 
> Jonathan

cheers,
Martin