[CF-metadata] CF standard names for chemical constituents?
heinke.hoeck at zmaw.de
Tue Oct 14 01:40:29 MDT 2008
Dear Jonathan and Stephan,
>Recognising that a common concept would be valuable to combine the
>name and the concept description implies, I think, that it is more
>to keep them together.
Sorry, but I don't agree and I think this is not what you told me before.
The important part starts with 'Alison's analysis' and ends with
'outside the netCDF file.'
Or did I misunderstood you 2007 ?
>Although I agree that in principle the current method
>could lead to thousands of names, so far the number of chemical names
>large and causes no problems.
I think the number of chemical names is very large and we are at the
Stephen gives us an estimation. 4500 species. Thank you for that.
> So while I agree we should keep possible
>solutions in mind, I do not think we need to solve the problem until it
This looks very dangerous to me. When is the point of no return ?
Can we reverse the standard names ?
How many standard names will blow up the system? I think no one is able
to give a number.
> I feel we should continue with the present approach, which is
At this point we can't do anything else, because we have no agreement,
should work on it.
We have Martina's list. Sorry, but I can't say yes to this. The
procedure is to accept
standard names which are really used. If we open the CF for translation
standardization projects we need a new procedure.
>What is the source of the threatening deluge? The ones from Martina, for
>instance, don't look to be a serious problem to me. There are two
I don't agree. This is the beginning see
with the combination of 4500 species.
>* Thinking about how they should be constructed. That is usually the
>because it is hard work, and not many brains are available.
The possible combination is hard work too.
>I would say that in Earth system models including more components, it
will become even more
>important to have a common standard namespace for all the components
>so that developers and models talk a common language.
That is the problem. I think they will never talk a common language. But
we can give help to translate it.
I have some problems with the chemical units. Are ug=10-6g and ppm allowed ?
I am not well versed in ontology. Could you give me more information
about the meeting ?
More information about the CF-metadata