Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rules for creating CCPP standard names #14

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Jul 27, 2021

Conversation

ligiabernardet
Copy link
Collaborator

Initial import of a file containing information about the rules for CCPP standard names. The information includes references to the CF convention, a list of qualifiers (extending the CF convention), a list of generic names (with corresponding units) that are used when creating standard names, and a list of acronyms, abbreviations, and aliases.

StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines +53 to +57
#. By default (when not specified otherwise), variables are grid means or centers
(defined by the host). If a variable is defined at a different physical location,
a qualifier should be used to denote this. For example, for variables
representing quantities at the interface between grid cells vertically,
use at_interface.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this rule may be in conflict with CF which sometimes seems to make different assumptions (not always self-consistent). It would be great to have a "get out of rule free" card that says to explicitly use layer to resolve ambiguous situations.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The CF is not geared toward numerical modeling, so it does not have subtleties such as layers vs interfaces. So I think we have discretion here to make our own rule. I am not seeing any ambiguous situations at the moment, that is: 1) default is layer, 2) if not layer, a qualifier must be used to denote where the variable is defined.
Do you have any suggestion?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is good (discussed at 2021-07-27 framework meeting).

StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ligiabernardet
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@cacraigucar and @gold2718 I believe I have addressed your comments, pls take a look.

StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
StandardNamesRules.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
@gold2718 gold2718 self-requested a review July 27, 2021 22:14
Comment on lines +53 to +57
#. By default (when not specified otherwise), variables are grid means or centers
(defined by the host). If a variable is defined at a different physical location,
a qualifier should be used to denote this. For example, for variables
representing quantities at the interface between grid cells vertically,
use at_interface.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is good (discussed at 2021-07-27 framework meeting).

@gold2718 gold2718 merged commit 3f4de47 into ESCOMP:main Jul 27, 2021
@ligiabernardet ligiabernardet deleted the stdnames_rules branch July 30, 2021 16:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants