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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Should we add a "wave" realm? #155

Closed
dougiesquire opened this issue Mar 1, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

Should we add a "wave" realm? #155

dougiesquire opened this issue Mar 1, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@dougiesquire
Copy link
Collaborator

With the addition of the ACCESS-OM3 builder, which can include WW3 data, it may be nice to add a "wave" realm to the schema. Currently the ACCESS-OM3 builder assigns wave data to the "ocean" realm, but having a "wave" realm will make it more findable. Adding a "wave" realm means deviating even farther from the CMIP6 "realm" controlled vocab, which we currently follow with the addition of "none" and "unknown".
@dougiesquire dougiesquire added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 1, 2024
@anton-seaice anton-seaice mentioned this issue Mar 1, 2024
Merged
@dougiesquire dougiesquire mentioned this issue Mar 14, 2024
Closed
@aidanheerdegen
Copy link
Member

Adding a "wave" realm means deviating even farther from the CMIP6 "realm" controlled vocab, which we currently follow with the addition of "none" and "unknown".

Is it worth making an issue to get a wave realm added to the WCRP controlled vocabs?

@dougiesquire
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Is it worth making an issue to get a wave realm added to the WCRP controlled vocabs?

Somehow I don't think that would be an easy or quick process...

@aidanheerdegen
Copy link
Member

Somehow I don't think that would be an easy or quick process

Be the change you wish to see in the world

@dougiesquire dougiesquire mentioned this issue Mar 28, 2024
Merged
@dougiesquire
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Closed by #161 and #162

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@aidanheerdegen @dougiesquire