unitDictionay additions made should we do a supplemental release?

[Scott Chapal]

[For Solar Radiation], does this look reasonable?

  <!--powerFlux-->
  <unitType id="powerFlux" name="powerFlux"> <!--wattsPerMeterSquared-->
	<dimension name="power"/>
        <dimension name="length" power="2"/>
  </unitType>

  <!--energyFlux-->
  <unitType id="energyFlux" name="energyFlux"> <!--kiloJoulesPerMeterSquared-->
        <dimension name="energy"/>
        <dimension name="length" power="2"/>
  </unitType>

  <init id="wattsPerMeterSquared" name="wattsPerMeterSquared"
        abbreviation="W/m²"
	multiplierToSI="1"/>
    <description>Watts per Meter Squared</description>
  </unit>

  <unit id="kiloJoulesPerMeterSquared" name="kiloJoulesPerMeterSquared"
        abbreviation="kJ/m²"
        multiplierToSI="1"/>
    <description>Kilo Joules per Meter Squared</description>
  </unit>

BTW, this excercise makes me wonder if we aren't re-inventing the
wheel, OR inventing a wheel that we shouldn't have to.   Has anybody
reviewed:

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/index.html

He certainly seems to have some expertise in the area.

And, what about NIST itself, or some other government standards body?
Why are WE having to do this and keep it correct and up to date?  I
definitely believe the unit dictionary should be de-coupled from EML
in the next release.

-Scott

Scott Chapal <scott.chapal at jonesctr.org> writes:

> Has the thinking on the unit-dictionary progressed?
> 
> What is discussed below seems a bit heavyweight to me.  Why can't a
> versioned unit dictionary exist as a simple stand alone schema
> document, referencable via a namespace declaration?  Considerations for
> backward compatibility would obviously apply.
> 
> Working with our climate data, I found the need for:
> 
> kiloPascal
> wattsPerMeterSquared
> kiloJoulePerMeterSquared
> Fuel Moisture % - percentWaterContentByWeight ??
> 
> Relative Humidity is presumably unitless?
> 
> -Scott

-- 
\SEC