Perhaps this is a use case where aliases could help.

I remember making this same argument for a term many years ago, and being told 
the reason for using the semantically modeled term is that *everyone else* who 
isn't in the field will recognize it.

Wouldn't it be the best of both worlds if both the semantic term, and the 
domain-familiar term, could be considered acceptable?

I think that sound I heard may have been glass shattering from the collective 
CF shriek. :-)

John 



On Jan 20, 2015, at 10:50, Lowry, Roy K. <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Nan,
> 
> I must admit a little discomfort watching the process of CF semantic 
> modelling replacing a well-known term with something that nobody in the 
> domain would recognise without significant education. I didn't comment 
> because I as a semantic modeller I can see both sides. However, I think 
> you're right and Wally Broecker's work is so well absorbed into 
> biogeochemistry that we should respect his terminology.
> 
> Cheers, Roy.
> ________________________________________
> From: Nan Galbraith [[email protected]]
> Sent: 20 January 2015 18:35
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name:  
> apparent_oxygen_utilization
> 
> Hi all -
> 
> I received this follow-up from Ajay, and thought it would be OK
> to share it with the list. I wasn't aware of it, but 'apparent oxygen
> utilization' seems to be a well-defined term in oceanography.
> 
> Not sure if this changes others' opinions, but it does change mine.
> 
> Regards -
> Nan
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        Re: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
> apparent_oxygen_utilization
> Date:   Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:24:25 -0500
> From:   Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate <[email protected]>
> To:     Nan Galbraith <[email protected]>
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Nan,
> 
> I posed your question to the Science team that requested the standard
> name and this was their response:
> 
> Maybe it is better to stick to a citable reference. No additional
> description of what AOU is necessary, in my opinion. But if one is
> needed, I can slightly modify Tim's version
> 
> AOU, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, is defined as the difference between
> the saturation oxygen concentration at 1 atmosphere and the observed
> oxygen concentration (Broecker and Peng, 1982)
> 
> Broecker, W. S. and T. H. Peng (1982), Tracers in the Sea,
> Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, N. Y.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>    Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:21:57 -0500 (EST)
>    From: Tim Boyer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>    To: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate <[email protected]
>    <mailto:[email protected]>>
>    Subject: Re: Fwd: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
>         apparent_oxygen_utilization
> 
>    Ajay,
> 
>    ...
> 
>       AOU is a standard calculation made by oceanographers to
>       estimate non-physical usage of oxygen - non-physical
>       meaning biological uptake/release and chemical reaction.
>       Physically, it is assumed that oxygen will be saturated
>       at the surface with respects to the atmosphere through physical
>       processes and therefore only non-physical processes can alter oxygen
>       content from saturation state.  If Nan (or Hernan) would like to
>       suggest a change or addition to the definition, thats
>       fine.
> 
>       As for whether AOU should be defined somewhere else,
>       cell method or standard name modifier - that is something
>       for you CF experts to decide.  Please ask Nan to propose
>       such a definition.
> 
>    Thanks,
>    Tim
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Nan Galbraith <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>    Hi, Ajay -
> 
>    This looks, at first glance, like a too-specific term; the
>    definition doesn't
>    carry as much information as the proposed standard name itself. What I
>    mean, specifically is, aren't there times when the difference
>    between saturation
>    oxygen and observed oxygen are NOT a measure of oxygen utilization?
> 
>    And, isn't there an existing method to describe a value that
>    represents a
>    difference such as this?  Standard name modifier, or cell method,
>    I'm not
>    sure which ... sorry I can't look more closely at this right now!
> 
>    Regards - Nan
> 
> 
> 
>    On 1/14/15 11:54 AM, Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
>>    Hi All,
>> 
>>    I had requested for a new standard name for
>>    apparent_oxygen_utilization during the last week of November.
>>    Since, there have been no discussions on it, I wanted to quickly
>>    follow up on it.
>> 
>>    Thanks,
>>    Ajay
>> 
>>    On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate
>>    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>>        Dear CF community,
>> 
>>        On behalf of NODC, I would like to request for a new standard
>>        name:
>> 
>>        apparent_oxygen_utiliziation (AOU)
>>        definition: the difference between saturation oxygen content
>>        and observed oxygen content.
>>        units: micromoles/kg
>> 
>> 
>>        Description is from Broecker and Peng, 1982, Tracers in
>>        the Sea
>>        
>> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~broecker/Home_files/TracersInTheSea_searchable.pdf
>>        
>> <http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/%7Ebroecker/Home_files/TracersInTheSea_searchable.pdf>
>>        (pp 131-138)
>> 
>>        Some more detail in Garcia et al., World Ocean Atlas
>>        Volume 3: Dissolved Oxygen, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, and
>>        Oxygen Saturation.
>>        http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/WOA13/DOC/woa13_vol3.pdf
>> 
>>        Thanks,
>>        Ajay
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>    --
>    *******************************************************
>    * Nan Galbraith        Information Systems Specialist *
>    * Upper Ocean Processes Group            Mail Stop 29 *
>    * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                *
>    * Woods Hole, MA 02543(508) 289-2444  <tel:%28508%29%20289-2444>  *
>    *******************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Reply via email to