This discussion has been ongoing a while (though with few participants), and I think it is valuable to the ocean community to resolve it quickly if possible.
After a quick round of on-line reading (and absent any uptake on creating an alias), I vote for using apparent_oxygen_utilization. The key sentence for me was in Encyclopedia of Earth content: 'This is a method of estimating the amount of dissolved oxygen utilized by marine organisms via respiration, although it is termed "apparent" for a reason.' (Which it then explains, and contrasts to True Oxygen Utilization.) The fact the term is universally known, taught, and used in the oceanography realm; does not seem to have any ambiguous uses in other domains; and fairly well captures the gist of the concept, says to me it's OK to use it. Even if it is functional rather than naming. I'd tweak the definition slightly: > AOU, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, is defined as the difference between the > saturation oxygen concentration in water at 1 atmosphere, and the observed > oxygen concentration (e.g., Broecker and Peng, 1982). It is a standard > calculation made by oceanographers to estimate non-physical effects on > oxygen, where non-physical means biological processes (uptake/release and > chemical reaction). If it turns out in the future this name causes trouble, we have a mechanism to fix it. But I think the domain-specific name will benefit CF more than hurt it. John --------------- John Graybeal Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org MMI Ontology Registry and Repository: http://mmisw.org/orr On Feb 2, 2015, at 07:02, Nan Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all - > > In the interest of getting a reply to Ajay, are we going to recommend the new > standard name difference_of_oxygen_per_unit_mass_in_sea_water_from_saturation, > as suggested by Jonathan? I suppose we can recommend that the BGC folks use > their domain's preferred term, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, as a long name. > > I'll just make one last-ditch effort, by quoting Roy's email of 1/20/15, then > I'll > stop being disagreeable: >> Wally Broecker's work is so well absorbed into biogeochemistry that we >> should respect his terminology. > > Cheers - > Nan > > > On 1/26/15 12:35 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote: >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 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 >>
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
