Hello all, I use sediment trap data, and I also agree with Roy and Matthias. It would help avoid confusion if the exact units were also included, such as these examples:
sinking_particulate_organic_carbon_flux_in_sea_water (mg OC m-2 d-1) sinking_particulate_total_carbon_flux_in_sea_water (mg TC m-2 d-1) take care, Crissy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nan Galbraith" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:35:07 AM Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data I also agree. I'm not sure about Tom's suggestion, but hope someone who has actual sediment trap data will weigh in on it: > 2. For the two names considered ready to go (particulate matter and > > particulate organic matter), adding the word "dry" would add > clarity. And, I DO especially like Matthias' cake batter analogy though. Thanks - Nan On 3/10/16 4:49 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: > Dear All, > > I totally agree with Matthias. I have never been fully comfortable with the > existing carbon flux Standard Names, but I was a lone 'observational' voice > in the debate when they were set up. They are: > > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_calcite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_aragonite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water > > > My preference for these would be > > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_aragonite_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water (aragonite has > to be particulate - it's a mineral) > sinking_mole_flux_of_calcite_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water > > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water (the usual > observational parameter that is the sum of the model parameters > sinking_mole_flux_of_aragonite_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water and > sinking_mole_flux_of_calcite_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water) > > Cheers, Roy. > > > > ________________________________________ > From: CF-metadata on behalf of Matthias Lankhorst <[email protected]> > Sent: 09 March 2016 19:59 > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data > > Hi, > > we had an internal discussion within OceanSITES about these sediment > trap data names, which resulted in one issue that still needs to be > resolved. > > > First off, the first two names are not affected, and we would like to > see those published a.s.a.p. as suggested below: > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water > We think these are ready for publication now. > > > The concern with the others was voiced by Laurent Coppola and is about > the wording "expressed_as". For the particular situation here, this > whole thing about "A_expressed_as_B" seems like a poor choice, because > we are making no attempt to express A. What is being reported is B, and > B only, with no implication what A might be. > > In other words, if you want to tell somebody how much sugar is in a > cake, what would you say: > 1. "amount of sugar in cake" > 2. "amount of batter expressed as sugar in cake" > We prefer option 1. Option 2 is ambiguous in that it is not intuitively > clear what "100 g" would mean: > 2.a) 100 grams of pure sugar > 2.b) 100 grams of batter, some of which is sugar > 2.c) the total calories of the cake, if they all came from sugar, would > be equivalent to 100 grams of pure sugar (but only some are actually > sugar, while some portion is from other ingredients) > > Would it be acceptable to abandon this "expressed_as" wording here, and > instead model the new names like the following ones (which already > exist): > > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_iron_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_phosphorus_in_sea_water > sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_silicon_in_sea_water > > > (For confusion, there are three other existing standard names with > sinking mole fluxes, which do use the "expressed_as"; two of these make > more sense than the third. Should we be making all of these consistent, > i.e. change the existing ones? That is a separate issue though.) > > > Regards, Matthias > > > > > On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 09:22 +0000, [email protected] wrote: >> Dear Stephane, Matthias, All, >> >> I know that these sediment trap names have been sitting around for an >> awfully long time - my apologies it has taken this long for me to >> review the original discussion. I think the only bone of contention >> was, as you say, around the use of the word "total" and there was a >> general opinion that the names would be useful with or without it. So, >> belatedly, I would like to come down on the side of not including >> "total" in the names. In CF, we have always taken the view that >> something should be regarded as fully inclusive, i.e. total, unless >> stated otherwise . As the person looking after the standard name table >> my concern is always to make our list of names as internally consistent >> as possible, hence my preference for sticking with the established CF >> practice on this point. I have added a sentence to the definitions of >> the "particulate_matter" names to emphasize that it includes both >> organic and inorganic species. >> >> Regarding the nitrogen and carbon names, we should write >> "particulate_[organic|inorganic]_matter_expressed_as_carbon|nitrogen" >> rather than simply "particulate_[organic|inorganic]_carbon|nitrogen", >> again for consistency with other names, otherwise they are fine. >> >> If you are happy with the following versions of the names and >> definitions then they can be accepted for inclusion in the standard >> name table. >> >> I am aware that the original proposal from Matthias contained names for >> a number of other chemical species, but I will pick those up in a >> separate posting. >> >> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water (canonical units: >> kg m-2 s-1) ' In accordance with common usage in geophysical >> disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux density" in >> physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of particulate matter >> suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive downwards and is >> calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding fluid. Sinking >> mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after water has >> evaporated. "Particulate matter" includes particles composed of both >> organic and inorganic chemical species.' >> >> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water (canonical >> units: kg m-2 s-1) ' In accordance with common usage in geophysical >> disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux density" in >> physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of particulate matter >> suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive downwards and is >> calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding fluid. Sinking >> mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after water has >> evaporated.' >> >> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water >> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) ' In accordance with common usage in >> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux >> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of >> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive >> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding >> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after >> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the >> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. >> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated >> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other >> chemical constituents of A. "Particulate matter" includes particles >> composed of both organic and inorganic chemical species.' >> >> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water >> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in >> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux >> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of >> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive >> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding >> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after >> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the >> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. >> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated >> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other >> chemical constituents of A.' >> >> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water >> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in >> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux >> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of >> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive >> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding >> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after >> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the >> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. >> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated >> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other >> chemical constituents of A.' >> >> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water >> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in >> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux >> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of >> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive >> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding >> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after >> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the >> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. >> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated >> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other >> chemical constituents of A. "Particulate matter" includes particles >> composed of both organic and inorganic chemical species.' >> >> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water >> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in >> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux >> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of >> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive >> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding >> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after >> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the >> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. >> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated >> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other >> chemical constituents of A.' >> >> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_matter_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water >> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in >> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux >> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of >> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive >> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding >> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after >> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the >> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. >> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated >> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other >> chemical constituents of A.' >> >> Best wishes, Alison >> >> ------ >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: CF-metadata On Behalf Of Stephane TAROT >>> Sent: 27 November 2015 14:50 >>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data >>> >>> 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]> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory >>>>>>> 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 _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
