Re: [cf-pointobsconvention] Draft 2


John Graybeal wrote:
Sorry, my terminological mistake in this community (where I come
from, what CF calls a 'standard name' is just another type of
variable name, but with a specialized purpose).

I think I get it (and I think my comment still applies).

I agree.  If I have a temperature, it means coming up with a
new standard name for each location (at_sea_level, at_tropopause,
at_halocline_top, at_halocline_bottom, etc).  That could quickly
get out of hand.  Of course, standard name is optional so you don't
have to use it.



At 10:59 AM -0600 9/18/07, John Caron wrote:
John Graybeal wrote:
That seems useful for models but not so much for observations
(which typically don't conform to, say, atmospheric surfaces).
More to the point, for me at least, the conflation of location
with variable name -- I have to name this varable one thing if I
measure it here, but then I move my instrument and my variable is
now called something else -- is not a viable general-purpose
mechanism for observing systems.
Jonathan was talking about an optional "standard name", not
variable names.

Don Murray                               UCAR Unidata Program
dmurray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                        P.O. Box 3000
(303) 497-8628                              Boulder, CO 80307