Hi, I would like to bring this discussion about new standard names for sediment trap data to a conclusion. I think what we learned from the discussion was that:
- we should keep "sinking" in there, rather than "downward" - we should not include "sediment_trap" wording in the names - uncertainty remains wrt wording of silicon, silica, ... - uncertainty remains wrt including isotope ratio information As far as I can tell, the following are not subject to the above uncertainties. Are there any objections to declaring victory and accepting these into the official names list: sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_carbon_in_sea_water sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_nitrogen_in_sea_water sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_nitrogen_in_sea_water Uncertainties still need to be resolved before proceeding with my other suggestions below (and possible amendments thereof): sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_XXX_in_sea_water, where XXX is: - aluminum - iron - phosphorous - silica - biogenic_silica - lithogenic_silica - calcium - titanium - manganese - barium - magnesium Respectfully, Matthias On Monday, October 14, 2013 04:15:11 am Lowry, Roy K. wrote: > Hello Thomas, > > It is indeed an established principle that Standard Names identify the > geophysical phenomenon and not how the parameter were measured. Hence my > later posting, which aimed to decouple composition terms from > 'sinking_flux'. > > Cheers, Roy. > > ________________________________ > From: Thomas Trull [[email protected]] > Sent: 14 October 2013 08:39 > To: Lowry, Roy K.; Maureen Conte > Cc: [email protected]; mlankhorst > Subject: RE: standard names for sediment trap data > > So, perhaps, the first part of the name could be ‘sediment_trap’? > Allowing: > sediment_trap_sinking_flux_.... with units of kg m-2 s-1 > and > sediment_trap_composition_.... with other units > > One reason to consider this is that there are other ways of measuring > sinking fluxes than via sediment traps. But perhaps names are more > intended to reflect measured variables rather than modes of measurement. > > > > From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, 12 October 2013 05:39 > To: Maureen Conte > Cc: Thomas Trull; [email protected]; mlankhorst > Subject: RE: standard names for sediment trap data > > Hi Maureen, > > I thought that might be the case, in which case I don't think the > suggestion fits with Standard Name principles, which require a match to > 'canonical units'. In my view, anything tagged 'sinking_flux' should have > canonical units of either kg/m2/s or moles/m2/s. > > Cheers, Roy. > > ________________________________ > From: Maureen Conte [[email protected]] > Sent: 11 October 2013 17:41 > To: Lowry, Roy K. > Cc: Thomas Trull; > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; OceanSITES Data > Management Team; mlankhorst Subject: Re: standard names for sediment trap > data > Hi all- Nice to hear from you Roy! Technically right- I was following on > Matthais's use of "sinking_flux" to denote sediment trap data. Maureen > > ________________________________ > From: "Roy K. Lowry" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > To: "Maureen Conte" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Thomas Trull" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, "OceanSITES > Data Management Team" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, > "mlankhorst" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: > Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31:51 AM > Subject: RE: standard names for sediment trap data > > Hello Maureen, > > Been a while since BOFS! A systematic approach attempting to cover all > bases isn't the established CF Standard Name management approach - it's a > much more responsive way of doing things. > > I'm also a little unclear about some of your proposals. For example, > consider 'sinking_flux_isotope ratio_nitrogen_total_15_14'. To me, a > sinking flux as canonical units of mass/quantity per unit area per unit > time and the concept of a ratio per unit area per unit time doesn't make > sense. Do you mean the isotopic ratio in the particulate material > comprising the sinking flux? If so, it needs to be described more like > '15/14_ratio_of_total_nitrogen_in_SPM'. However, the is off-topic for > Matthias's request which is to cover mass of a range of species sinking > though unit area per unit time. > > I would also say to Tom that people should be allowed to express as > biogenic silica (aka opal), lithogenic silica or silicon (with Standard > Names to suit) depending on their analytical procedure. This avoids issues > - that I have known get controversial - such as conversion of opal to > elemental silicon. > > Cheers, Roy. > > ________________________________ > From: CF-metadata [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maureen > Conte [[email protected]] Sent: 10 October 2013 13:49 > To: Thomas Trull > Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; OceanSITES > Data Management Team; mlankhorst Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names > for sediment trap data > > > Hi Matthias > > I like Tom's suggestion for naming sediment trap data. It is very clear and > matches the organization of most sediment trap data. However, I suggest > using "massflux", "concentration" and "isotope ratio" as delimiters as > these are well defined terms and unambiguous (I assume there is a > descriptive file associated with the data that provides the units?). Also, > as most elements aren't divided into "lithogenic", "biogenic" etc., > perhaps switching the order makes more sense, so all the elements would be > at the same hierarchical unit, using "total" when elements are not > separated into operational fractions, ie > > sinking_flux_massflux_silicon_lithogenic > sinking_flux_concentration_silicon_lithogenic > sinking_flux_isotope ratio_silicon_lithogenic_30_28 > sinking_flux_isotope ratio_carbon_organic_13_12 > sinking_flux_isotope ratio_nitrogen_total_15_14 > > Cheers > Maureen Conte > (PI of the Oceanic Flux Program time-series) > > ________________________________ > From: "Thomas Trull" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > To: "<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, "OceanSITES > Data Management Team" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: > Thursday, October 10, 2013 5:28:08 AM > Subject: Re: standard names for sediment trap data > > Hi Matthias, > I like your proposed canonical units and terms. The names are also > systematic and clear. I do not see the need to include the word total > when an elemental flux is not split into molecular or other components. > Items that I think might need further consideration: 1. In the list of XXX > items, would it be clearer to specify silicon rather than silica for all > terms related to silica (since the molecular composition of lithogenic, > biogenic silica forms are often unknown)? Or do we have to write XXX as > '_biogenic_silica_as_silicon' 2. Is it worth settling on a standard > approach to isotopic (and other) compositions ? For example, 13C-POC. > Units of flux rather than composition would be somewhat unusual for > isotopes, making variables starting with 'sinking_mass_flux' somewhat odd. > That is unfortunate, since indicating sinking flux as the overall sample > type seems to be the top category worth retaining. One way around this > would be a slight reordering to two groups of variables, e.g.: > sinking_flux_mass_lithogenic_silicon > sinking_flux_composition_lithogenic_silicon_isotopic_ratio_30_28 > > Or is that clumsy? > > Of course we could force all compositional information (isotopes, diatom > species relative abundances, etc. )into mass flux units, with satisfyingly > simple units, but then they all have to be reconverted into units people > want to use. This would mean carrying absolute isotopic abundance for > standards within the files for completeness. > > As usual there are many ways to skin a cat, but none are easy when the cat > sees you coming! > > Best wishes, > Tom > > > On 10/10/2013, at 10:16, "Matthias Lankhorst" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Dear CF community, > > in the OceanSITES project, we would like to publish data from sediment > traps in files, using the CF conventions. Sediment traps are devices > moored underwater in the ocean, which collect sinking particles (detritus) > in a funnel and into sample bottles for later analyses. Analyses can be > done for a variety of substances. It looks like we need a few more > standard names for these, and possibly a discussion whether some of them > should be expressed as mass fluxes or as substance amount (mole) fluxes. > > I noticed that CF already has these standard names, all as mole fluxes with > canonical units of mol m-2 s-1: > > sinking_mole_flux_of_aragonite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_calcite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_iron_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_ > water sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_phosphorus_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_silicon_in_sea_water > > Here is the list of quantities that we need to address in OceanSITES. My > initial proposal is to introduce them all as mass fluxes with canonical > units of kg m-2 s-1. If we should rather go with mole fluxes like the ones > above, please chime in. > > Total/organic mass: > Propose new standard names: > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water > (I suppose these are understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after water has > evaporated.) > > Particulate organic, inorganic, total carbon: > Propose new standard names: > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_carbon_in_sea_water > (or should we include "total" somewhere in the latter?) > > Particulate organic, inorganic, total nitrogen: > Propose new standard names: > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_nitrogen_in_sea_water > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_nitrogen_in_sea_water > (or should we include "total" somewhere in the latter?) > > Other particulate substances from a list: > Propose new standard names for each of the following, to be constructed as: > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_XXX_in_sea_water, > where XXX is: > - aluminum > - iron > - phosphorous > - silica > - biogenic_silica > - lithogenic_silica > - calcium > - titanium > - manganese > - barium > - magnesium > > Your expert comments are highly appreciated! > > Respectfully, Matthias > > > -- > _______________________________________ > > Dr. Matthias Lankhorst > Scripps Institution of Oceanography > 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0230 > La Jolla, CA 92093-0230 > USA > > Phone: +1 858 822 5013 > Fax: +1 858 534 9820 > E-Mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~mlankhorst/ > > > Cliquez sur l'url suivante > https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/lY1WG0lkPnzGX2PQPOmvUpJBCTqJzJUe2yY2IM9UP7ZY > +SeOyXIDbMOdGGRUOm5ehsBIKC7m4TwFoPzuIXnePg== si ce message est indésirable > (pourriel). > > > > > > -- > ******************************************* > Dr. Maureen H. Conte > Ecosystems Center > MBL > Woods Hole MA 02543 > 508/289-7744 (office) > 508/457-1548 (FAX) > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > http://ecosystems.mbl.edu/conte/index.html > ******************************************* > > ________________________________ > 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. > > > > -- > ******************************************* > Dr. Maureen H. Conte > Ecosystems Center > MBL > Woods Hole MA 02543 > 508/289-7744 (office) > 508/457-1548 (FAX) > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > http://ecosystems.mbl.edu/conte/index.html > ******************************************* > > ________________________________ > 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. > > ________________________________ > 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. -- _______________________________________ Dr. Matthias Lankhorst Scripps Institution of Oceanography 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0230 La Jolla, CA 92093-0230 USA Phone: +1 858 822 5013 Fax: +1 858 534 9820 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~mlankhorst/ _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
