Sorry Jonathan, Having re-read Chris's last message I see that he is now pushing for TPH, suggesting that we contact WetLabs/SeaBird to see if they agree that it is an appropriate description for the calibrated output of their instrument.
I have contacts in the company, so I'll do that. Cheers, Roy. -----Original Message----- From: CF-metadata [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory Sent: 06 July 2016 10:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water OK, thanks. Sorry for not keeping up. Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K." <[email protected]> ----- > Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:19:56 +0000 > From: "Lowry, Roy K." <[email protected]> > To: Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] New standard name for > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water > > Dear Jonathan, > > I think we've lost the thread a little here. I initially suggested TPH until > I realised the nature of Mike's measurements. Once I did I withdrew the > suggestion. Therefore the 'total' or 'no total' debate is possibly a red > herring. > > Cheers, Roy. > > -----Original Message----- > From: CF-metadata [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Jonathan Gregory > Sent: 06 July 2016 09:39 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water > > Dear Chris > > I'm aware that I've caused frustration before by insisting on this point, but > believe me, my aim is not to be annoying! We do actually have "total" in two > standard names, where it was a technical term which seemed essential for > clarification and which could not easily be explained in simpler terms. That > is, in those two names: > atmosphere_stability_total_totals_index > sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale > "total" doesn't mean an aggregation, but something rather specific. In other > cases, we assume that "total" is intended if there isn't a qualification. CF > standard names follow commonly used terms when those are systematic and self- > explanatory or there is no alternative, but they aren't necessarily the same > as common terms. I think in many cases the CF standard name is an answer to > the question "What does that mean?" rather than to "What do you call that?", > because this is useful in the interdisciplinary context of CF. > > Therefore I still feel that total should be omitted from the standard name. > In the definition we could say that this is often/usually called "total" and > certainly we would explain it refers to all phases and compounds together. > It would be useful to hear other opinions on this. > > Thanks for your patience. Best wishes > > Jonathan > > ----- Forwarded message from Chris Barker <[email protected]> > ----- > > > Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:09:59 -0700 > > From: Chris Barker <[email protected]> > > To: Jonathan Gregory <[email protected]> > > CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for > > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Gregory > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally > > > assume that the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and > > > we add more words in order to be specific, for example > > > atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means all kinds of > > > cloud, and atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud > > > is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be > > > consistent with this pattern, in order to mean all phases. > > > > > > > Indeed -- however, the "total" in "total petroleum hydrocarbons" is > > very much part of the name in common usage. And I think the "total" > > refers both to phase: droplets vs dissolved, and also to the > > multiple compounds and classes of compound, like in contrast, with, > > say" Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon" (PAH). So I say we keep the "total" > > in the name. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_petroleum_hydrocarbon > > > > If someone is concerned about what the instrument measures, I'd ask > > someone technical at the company of TPH captures it for them. > > > > (after all, what the instrument REALLY measures is Fluorescence...) > > > > > > -CHB > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. > > Oceanographer > > > > Emergency Response Division > > NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice > > 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax > > Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception > > > > [email protected] > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > ________________________________ > This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is > subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email > and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from > release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an > electronic records management system. > ________________________________ ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata ________________________________ This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
