OOI will be adopting and/or developing some standard vocabularies for many facets of instruments (manufacturer, model, 'type' (ick), possibly mount, likely a few other things. We'll be sure to take a good look at your vocabularies, Roy. I particularly recall the methodology vocabulary -- that seems closest to a pure answer to Jim's original question. (The instrument 'type' in :MBARI's SSDS was much more coupled to manufacturing practices -- "CTD" for example describing the type of configuration one can buy, and not much about methodology of a particular measurement.)
We'll also have to create or use an instrument description specification like yours, Nan. Can you tell me, what is instrument_reference? And (this may be a question showing off my ignorance) do I correctly understand that (time, depth) means you are identifying the instrument for every measurement, not just every depth? So getting back to the original question, for automated sampling methodologies, I recall seeing at least one vocabulary that was particularly well suited, in addition to Roy's for a wide range of techniques. Nan, if your spec included TEMP_sensing_methodology for each variable, it would go a long way to a good answer, seems to me.. John On Aug 26, 2011, at 07:06, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: > Hi Nan, > > It would be really neat from my point of view if your ancillary variables > were to include a link to a published vocabulary of instruments (in addition > not instead of your existing fields). As you probably know, I can offer you > one (http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/list/L22/)........ > > Cheers, Roy. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nan Galbraith > Sent: 26 August 2011 14:58 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names > > I agree with Roy, that as long as the values can be reasonably > compared they should share a standard name. > > It would be a good next step, though, to develop or adopt some > standard way to describe the methodology, or at least the instrumentation, > so that the user can allow for any distinction between e.g. microwave and > infrared brightness_temperature. > > We're using an ancillary variable for this, but there may be some > other way to do it that we haven't thought of yet. Whatever method > is adopted (when/if one is) it needs to work for files that have data > from different instruments at different depths. > > float TEMP(time, depth) ; > TEMP:standard_name = "sea_water_temperature" ; > TEMP:ancillary_variables = > "TEMP_Instrument_manufacturer, TEMP_Instrument_model > TEMP_Instrument_reference TEMP_Instrument_mount > TEMP_Instrument_serial_number TEMP_QC TEMP_QC_value > TEMP_QC_procedure TEMP_Accuracy TEMP_Precision TEMP_Resolution"; > char TEMP_Instrument_manufacturer(depth, 20); > char TEMP_Instrument_model(depth,6); > ... > > Nan > > On 8/26/11 9:05 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: >> Hi Jim, >> >> Not the first time this has cropped up on the CF list. The problem is that >> when the Standard Names started out they were designed as OPTIONAL terms to >> identify model fields that referred to a given geophysical phenomenon. >> There has been a sort of mission creep since then with standard names being >> considered by some as unique standardised labels for every data channel in a >> CF file, accelerated by some communities choosing to make Standard Names >> compulsory for their CF files. This of course creates the need for more and >> more information to get hung off the Standard Name tag. >> >> I continue to support the conclusion of these previous discussions, which is >> to keep methodologies out of Standard Names unless the methodology results >> in a significantly different phenomenon. There was quite a debate on this >> issue involving different types of sea surface temperature that you might >> care to look up in the archive. >> >> Cheers, Roy. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Biard >> Sent: 26 August 2011 13:28 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names >> >> Hi. >> >> I've got a general question regarding standard names. I have had people >> I work with asking whether it would be acceptable to have a standard >> name that included methodology, such as microwave_brightness_temperature >> as opposed to infrared_brightness_temperature. My feeling has been that >> standard names are not supposed to have such differentiators, but I >> haven't read anything that states that directly. Are standard names for >> measurements limited to "essential" descriptions, or can they include >> specification of the way the measurement was acquired? >> >> Grace and peace, >> >> Jim Biard >> > > > -- > ******************************************************* > * Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 * > * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 * > * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution * > * Woods Hole, MA 02543 * > ******************************************************* > > > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > -- > This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC > is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents > of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless > it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to > NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata John Graybeal <mailto:[email protected]> phone: 858-534-2162 Product Manager Ocean Observatories Initiative Cyberinfrastructure Project: http://ci.oceanobservatories.org Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
