Re: [cf-pointobsconvention] Draft 2

• To: "John Caron" <caron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Graybeal, John" <graybeal@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: [cf-pointobsconvention] Draft 2
• From: "McCann, Mike" <mccann@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:08:49 -0700

-----Original Message-----
From: cf-pointobsconvention-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cf-pointobsconvention-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John Caron
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:53 AM
To: Graybeal, John
Cc: cf-pointobsconvention@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cf-pointobsconvention] Draft 2



John Graybeal wrote:
> Was there something wrong with the term 'profile'? I
thought that was reasonable.  Some profiles will not be
regular, and I think that's OK.

Yes, "profile" is correct, there were some places i
inadvertantly used "profiler". Just wondering if there was a
better generic name.

I think "profile" is fine.  It's meaning is understood within
Oceanography and would be O.K. for irregular vertical axes.
My intention was to introduce terminology used within the
community, not to offer "string" as as a better generic name.

-Mike

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [cf-pointobsconvention] Draft 2
    • From: Parton, GA (Graham)

• References:
  • Re: [cf-pointobsconvention] Draft 2
    • From: John Caron