Dear John Thanks for your research. If I'm in a small minority or alone in preferring a self-explanatory term then I'll accept the majority view. Do you find that this quantity always has the same physical dimensions (canonical unit in CF terms)? A possible cause of confusion would be if, for instance, the same term is used to mean both kg m-3 and mol m-3. In that case it might help to indicate which it is in the standard name.
Best wishes Jonathan On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:21:40AM -0800, John Graybeal wrote: > Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:21:40 -0800 > From: John Graybeal <[email protected]> > To: CF Metadata List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name: > apparent_oxygen_utilization > X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) > > 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 _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
