Hi All, We're in the process of including the AOU variable in the World Ocean Atlas 2013. Before we archive the data, it would be really nice to have a consensus on the standard name for apparent_oxygen_utilization. Could the CF community kindly vote on this?
Thanks, Ajay On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:03 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send CF-metadata mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of CF-metadata digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name: > apparent_oxygen_utilization (Nan Galbraith) > 2. Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name: > apparent_oxygen_utilization (Jonathan Gregory) > 3. Editing/publishing workflow update (Hattersley, Richard) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:20:54 -0500 > From: Nan Galbraith <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name: > apparent_oxygen_utilization > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > The terms that have been suggested (like > difference_of_oxygen_per_unit_mass_ > in_sea_water_from_saturation) are more descriptive of the method of > measurement > and calculation than of the concept being described, apparent oxygen > utilization, > so I have to respectfully disagree. > > I think there are precedents for allowing a concept like 'apparent > oxygen utilization' > to be used as a standard name, in preference to describing measurement and > calculation methods in these terms. > > Some examples are richardson_number_in_sea_water, > atmosphere_dry_energy_content, > atmosphere_convective_inhibition_wrt_surface - these all describe the > calculations in > their definitions, not in the names themselves. > > Regards - > Nan > > > On 1/21/15 1:46 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote: > > Dear Nan > > > > Sorry to be awkward, but it doesn't change my opinion. CF standard names > are > > often not the terms which are customarily used in the expert communities > > themselves. They're not really names, but explanations, in many cases. > This > > is in no way to underrate the expertise of the people concerned, but to > make > > things clear. For example, in atmospheric science, there is a quantity > which > > most people would recognise by the name of omega. But that's not at all > self- > > explanatory and the same letter is used in other fields for different > things, > > so its standard name is lagrangian_tendency_of_air_pressure, which > answers > > the question, "What is omega?", rather than being the customary jargon > term. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Jonathan > > > > ----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith<[email protected]> ----- > > > >> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:35:36 -0500 > >> From: Nan Galbraith<[email protected]> > >> To:[email protected] > >> Subject: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name: > >> apparent_oxygen_utilization > >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; > rv:1.9.2.28) > >> Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20 > >> > >> 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 > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > _______________________________________________ > > CF-metadata mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > > > -- > ******************************************************* > * Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist * > * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 * > * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution * > * Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 * > ******************************************************* > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:35:22 +0000 > From: Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name: > apparent_oxygen_utilization > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Dear Nan > > Yes, there are standard_names which are not self-explanatory, I agree. But > I > think that in the standard_name table the advantage of being > self-explanatory > outweighs the disadvantage of being longer and less familiar. The > standard_name > table has a particular purpose of helping to describe quantities so that > people > with different sources of data can work out if their quantities are "the > same > thing" for the purpose of intercomparison. That's why we may use different > and > more explicit terms from the ones that experts in various domains use among > themselves. > > Yours equally respectfully > > Jonathan > > ----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith <[email protected]> ----- > > > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:20:54 -0500 > > From: Nan Galbraith <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name: > > apparent_oxygen_utilization > > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:31.0) > > Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 > > > > The terms that have been suggested (like > > difference_of_oxygen_per_unit_mass_ > > in_sea_water_from_saturation) are more descriptive of the method of > > measurement > > and calculation than of the concept being described, apparent oxygen > > utilization, > > so I have to respectfully disagree. > > > > I think there are precedents for allowing a concept like 'apparent > > oxygen utilization' > > to be used as a standard name, in preference to describing measurement > and > > calculation methods in these terms. > > > > Some examples are richardson_number_in_sea_water, > > atmosphere_dry_energy_content, > > atmosphere_convective_inhibition_wrt_surface - these all describe > > the calculations in > > their definitions, not in the names themselves. > > > > Regards - > > Nan > > > > > > On 1/21/15 1:46 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote: > > >Dear Nan > > > > > >Sorry to be awkward, but it doesn't change my opinion. CF standard > names are > > >often not the terms which are customarily used in the expert communities > > >themselves. They're not really names, but explanations, in many cases. > This > > >is in no way to underrate the expertise of the people concerned, but to > make > > >things clear. For example, in atmospheric science, there is a quantity > which > > >most people would recognise by the name of omega. But that's not at all > self- > > >explanatory and the same letter is used in other fields for different > things, > > >so its standard name is lagrangian_tendency_of_air_pressure, which > answers > > >the question, "What is omega?", rather than being the customary jargon > term. > > > > > >Best wishes > > > > > >Jonathan > > > > > >----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith<[email protected]> ----- > > > > > >>Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:35:36 -0500 > > >>From: Nan Galbraith<[email protected]> > > >>To:[email protected] > > >>Subject: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name: > > >> apparent_oxygen_utilization > > >>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; > rv:1.9.2.28) > > >> Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20 > > >> > > >>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 > > >----- End forwarded message ----- > > >_______________________________________________ > > >CF-metadata mailing list > > >[email protected] > > >http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > > > > > > > -- > > ******************************************************* > > * Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist * > > * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 * > > * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution * > > * Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 * > > ******************************************************* > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CF-metadata mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:03:48 +0000 > From: "Hattersley, Richard" <[email protected]> > To: CF Metadata List <[email protected]> > Subject: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update > Message-ID: > < > 21a2c87797fa6042b162a8a0a11a15db07029...@exxcmpd1dag2.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Dear all, > > Summary for the time-pressed reader: > - Some of us would like to simplify the workflow for editing the CF > conventions. > - I've made a work-in-progress demo here: > http://cf-metadata.github.io/cf-conventions.html. > - The demo is automatically built from AsciiDoc sources here: > https://github.com/cf-metadata/cf-conventions-asciidoc > - Feedback welcome! What's the appetite for exploring further? > > I've recently delved back into the options for simplifying and automating > the workflow for modifying the CF conventions document. This is in the > light of some useful discussion early last year, and a friendly nudge from > Rich Signell (thanks Rich!). > > In general, this has been an encouraging exploration. Fortunately we are > not at the technological vanguard of the publishing world - others with > greater resources (e.g. O'Reilly) have already paved the way. As a result I > believe we can achieve a very workable solution based around the AsciiDoc > format<http://asciidoctor.org/docs/what-is-asciidoc/>. > > There are three main problems I've been looking at: > > 1. How to get from the current DocBook sources to AsciiDoc? > > 2. How to make the authoring/reviewing process easier? > > 3. How to convert AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF? > > To get from DocBook to AsciiDoc I have extended an existing solution< > https://github.com/rhattersley/docbook2asciidoc> from O'Reilly. They use > the AsciiDoc format in their Atlas publishing platform so they have already > done most of the hard work. Where possible I'd like to get my extensions > merged into their original. > > The authoring/reviewing process relies on GitHub pull requests and their > built-in support for rendering AsciiDoc. This provides a good preview of > the document (although some features of the final HTML output are not > rendered), and an inline reviewing system. (NB. I've split the document > into multiple files, but that is not essential.) Once a change has been > accepted the corresponding HTML (and eventually PDF) is automatically > rebuilt and pushed to the demo website. > > To get from AsciiDoc to HTML/PDF I have used the excellent asciidoctor< > http://asciidoctor.org/> software for HTML and a sister project for PDF. > The HTML support is excellent but the PDF solution is less mature (there is > an alternative which might do better). That said, both projects are under > active support/development and are open to contribution. > > Questions, feedback, encouragement, offers of assistance and/or beer ... > they're all welcome! ;-) > > > Richard Hattersley AVD Expert Software Developer > Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > Tel: +44 (0)1392 885702 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > Email: [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> Website: www.metoffice.gov.uk< > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/> > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150127/c04e2329/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > ------------------------------ > > End of CF-metadata Digest, Vol 141, Issue 8 > ******************************************* >
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
