[CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de
Tue Aug 15 01:26:09 MDT 2017
I agree that standard name "atmosphere_mass_content_*" is not
self-descriptive. It is not clear from its name (but the description
clarifies it!) whether it is the mass content either with respect to a
column with given base area or with respect to the whole atmosphere.
"atmosphere_mass_content_*" seems to be quite established as term in the
CF standard names (200+ by number). I am not sure whether it is
reasonable to change all these names? Which alternative term would you
For "mass_concentration_*_in_air" I do not see this problem. The
document, which you linked, points out that one should not use
'concentration of X' because it could be a molar or mass concentration
(or something else). Therefore, the physical quantity in the numerator
should be used as prefix.
Am 2017-08-14 20:39, schrieb Steven Emmerson:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Neumann
> <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de> wrote:
>> Thank you for your comment.
>> I am not sure whether I got the comment correct: It does not become
>> clear which mass per which volume is described by
>> "mass_concentration_of_X_in_dry_aerosol_in_air"? You mean ambiguity
>> whether it is either 'mass of X' in the volume of
>> 'dry_aerosol_in_air' of 'only mass of X, which is in dry aerosol' in
>> the volume of 'air'? With respect to the guide you linked: it does
>> not become what 'B' actually is? Thus, I should re-think the order
>> and the connecting prepositions?
>> Or do want to point out that the terms "atmosphere_mass_content_*"
>> and "mass_concentration_*_in_air" might be problematic in general?
> The latter.
> Steve Emmerson
Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemuende
Physical Oceanography and Instrumentation
fax: +49-381-5197-114 or 440
e-mail: daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de
More information about the CF-metadata