Re: [CF-metadata] water flow rate through sensor [Sec=Unclassified]

[Nan Galbraith]

Hi Miles - > ... I am wondering about flow rate of water through TSG or > fluorometer. I was expecting water_flow_rate or similar. What should > I use? Since this is not a geophysical parameter, it shouldn't  have a name like "water_flow_rate" but could be named the way CF handles another instrument-related variable, "temperature_of_sensor_for_oxygen_in_sea_water". If "water_flow_rate_of_sensor_for_temperature_in_sea_water" is used, it could be associated with the conductivity, salinity, and whatever other variables are measured by the unit - e.g. if there's a fluorometer - using the ancillary_variable attribute. If you instead list temperature and conductivity in the name, it could be less useful when other variables are being measured by the system. Whether this needs a standard name at all isn't clear, since you can include variables without standard names in a compliant CF file. Some people (including me) think that any commonly used, potentially helpful instrument- or measurement-related variables should have standard names, but it's not a universal opinion. Also I see nothing for fluorescence, although I think there used to be a code just called 'fluorescence'. What to use here? If you have access to the email archives, this name was proposed and, I think, rejected - I don't have the original, proposed definition, but there was a discussion in July '05 (see r...@bodc.ac.uk, Re:[CF-metadata] Proposed Standard Names). Here's the relevant part: The term 'fluorescence' is one of my nightmares. Even the definition given doesn't tell the whole story. Do we need to include excitation and measurement wavelengths as we're now starting to encounter fluorometers designed to measure phycoerythrin as well as chlorophyll? Using the term 'chlorophyll_fluorescence' might address this. However, we've received data labelled 'fluorescence' that have been: Fluorometer output in counts Fluorometer output in volts Processed fluorometer output voltage resulting in a nominal chlorophyll concentration but never received data that correspond to the definition given. This makes me curious as to what it is you actually have in this channel: might be worth checking. - Nan -- ******************************************************* * Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 * * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 * * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution * * Woods Hole, MA 02543 * *******************************************************

_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata