Dear Nan and Alison I think Alison's view on this would be helpful in particular.
Best wishes Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith <[email protected]> ----- > Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:05:56 -0500 > From: Nan Galbraith <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], "[email protected] >> Matthias Lankhorst" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:31.0) > Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 > > Hello CF - > > This request for standard names for sediment trap data variables seems > to have languished since mid-December. Are we waiting for Matthias to > respond to comments from Roy and Jonathan, or are we ready to make > a decision? > > I may have left out some of the messages on the thread, which were not > included in the last round of emails. > > Regards - Nan > > > > On 12/9/13 7:17 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: > >Dear All, > > > >My reason for including 'total' in these cases is because I've seen it used > >in that way by communities handling those particular parameters. Question is > >whether we follow CF past practice or established usage outside CF. I would > >prefer to follow community practice, but don't see inclusion/exclusion of > >total as a show-stopper. Jonathan and I (not for the first time) make the > >opinion score 1 all. Anybody else any views on this? > > > >Cheers, Roy. > >________________________________________ > >From: CF-metadata [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan > >Gregory [[email protected]] > >Sent: 08 December 2013 00:01 > >Subject: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data > > > >Dear Roy > > > >>Thinking about it over night (I'm currently in San Diego), I think a way > >>forward might be to use the word 'total' in all cases, but define is as 'in > >>every form', which provides a common denominator between these two usages. > >Yes, that's possible, but even simpler is to say that if nothing is > >specified, > >the *default* is "in every form". I think that is the approach we have > >usually > >taken, although I can't think of examples off the top of my head. I would > >note, > >however, that there is only one existing standard name containing the word > >"total" viz > >sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale > >in which "total" appears because it is the technical name of that scale. > >(And I'm in Toronto on the way to San Francisco.) > > > >Best wishes > > > >Jonathan > >On 12/6/13 3:24 PM, Matthias Lankhorst wrote: > >>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 > > > -- > ******************************************************* > * 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 ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
