cf-convention / vocabularies

Issues and source files for CF controlled vocabularies
0 stars 0 forks source link

ice_and_snow_on_land area type description #60

Open taylor13 opened 1 year ago

taylor13 commented 1 year ago

The description in http://cfconventions.org/Data/area-type-table/10/build/area-type-table.html of the area type ice_and_snow_on_land says "The area type "ice_and_snow_on_land" means ice in glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets (grounded and floating shelves), river and lake ice, any other ice on a land surface, such as frozen flood water, and snow lying on such ice or on the land surface."

If the description is correct, then I think the area type should be named "ice_or_snow_on_land". The current name would imply to me that only the land area covered with snow on ice should be considered, but I think we want areas covered by snow alone or covered by ice (with snow on top or not).

JonathanGregory commented 1 year ago

Yes, I think you're right, Karl @taylor13, and this would be consistent with lake_ice_or_sea_ice. I don't think we have aliases for area types, and we cannot invalidate old data, so if we want to change ice_and_snow_on_land to ice_or_snow_on_land we might have to define the new one but keep the old one too, with a modified definition to say it's deprecated.

taylor13 commented 1 year ago

Thanks for reviewing this. Formally, I think the correction is consistent with language used in set theory where the union of set A and set B is described as the set comprising members of A or B or both. The intersection of set A and set B is described as the set comprising members of both A and B. Thus, ice_or_snow would be consistent with the description. As you note we do not provide for aliases, so proceeding as you suggest seems easiest.

davidhassell commented 1 year ago

Hello

I agree that "or" is better than "and", here, and @JonathanGregory's suggestion sounds good.

taylor13 commented 1 year ago

Yes, let's do it!

JonathanGregory commented 1 year ago

To summarise. We have agreed

Please could the moderators @feggleton @japamment review this proposal? Thanks

github-actions[bot] commented 1 year ago

Thank you for your proposal. These terms will be added to the cfeditor (http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1) shortly. Your proposal will then be reviewed and commented on by the community and Standard Names moderator.

github-actions[bot] commented 1 year ago

This issue has had no activity in the last 30 days. This is a reminder to please comment on standard name requests to assist with agreement and acceptance. Standard name moderators are also reminded to review @feggleton @japamment

github-actions[bot] commented 1 week ago

This issue has had no activity in the last 30 days. Accordingly:

Standard name moderators are also reminded to review @feggleton @japamment @efisher008