Conventions versus standard

[pvanlaake]

Consistently refer to CF as a set of conventions

Moderator

not assigned

Requirement Summary

In 5 places throughout the conventions document there is the phrase "CF standard". The document, however, is not a standard but a set of conventions. There are 41 references to "CF convention(s)". This discrepancy should be removed.

Technical Proposal Summary

Change "CF standard" and "CF convention" to "CF conventions".

Benefits

Consistency in the document

Status Quo

This issue was flagged in the PR #604 on updating section 4.4 for CF-1.13. At that time it was suggested to treat it as a separate issue.

Associated pull request

To be prepared after agreement reached.

[larsbarring]

Here is the link to the specific PR conversation: #604 (comment)

[JonathanGregory]

Thanks for raising this issue, Patrick @pvanlaake and @larsbarring.

The inconsistency is present because "convention" can mean either "an agreed procedure" or "a set of agreed points", and CF is both of those. Also, I think it is a standard; not de jure by ISO or some other standards body, but de facto. Therefore I don't think any of the three is actually wrong, but I agree that it would be better to be consistent. Changing to "conventions" everywhere would be consistent with the title of the CF home page. Also, did we discuss previously the use of the word "We" in the document? Perhaps those should be replaced as well.

If this change is agreed in some form, we will need to make a note of it somewhere so that we are reminded to stick to it in future text.

I would say that this change is not simply rectifying a defect. I think it should be treated as an enhancement issue.

[JonathanGregory]

Many thanks for your careful and intelligent editing of the text to make this change, Patrick @pvanlaake. I have commented in the PR in a few cases (a small minority) where I'd suggest different wording that seems clearer or more economical to me.

[JonathanGregory]

Apart from @ChrisBarker-NOAA and me, who have both commented, does anyone have any concerns or comments on Patrick's edits? Do you support the change, @larsbarring and @ChrisBarker-NOAA?

[ChrisBarker-NOAA]

I support the changes -- thanks Patrick!

[larsbarring]

I have now had a quick read of the changes, and I agree with Chris. Thanks for the careful work @pvanlaake and @JonathanGregory !

[JonathanGregory]

Thanks, all. In that case, we will accept this proposal in three weeks, on 26th February, unless someone raises a new concern before then.

[JonathanGregory]

Since no further comments have been made, this change is accepted according to the rules and I will merge PR #628 now. Thanks, Patrick.