Dear Colleagues,
In december 2013, some standard names (see below) for sediment trap
data parameters were almost approved.
Last august, I suggested that we can maybe consider them as approved. I
had no response (so, nobody disagrees).
What is the next step in order to have them added to the official list
of standard names ?
Best regards
Stéphane Tarot
Le 14/08/2015 10:45, Stephane TAROT a écrit :
Hi,
I'd like to put back this subject on top of the list.
The following 8 new parameters were almost approved in december 2013 :
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
(with a canonical unit : kg m-2 s-1)
There was only a remark from Roy who suggested to add "total" for
total_carbon (=organic+inorganic in its definition) and total_nitrogen
in names 5 and 8
But he also said it shouldn't be a stopper to include/exclude it.
So can we agree on those new parameters, and add them to the list ?
Best regards
Stéphane Tarot
Le 04/02/2015 17:54, Jonathan Gregory a écrit :
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
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
