Dear Alison, I agree on all your textual changes to the descriptions and units of the standard-names. Please find attached the new table with the standard-names connected to the isotopes. These are the isotopes in active use.
If it is to difficult or distracting to include all isotopes into the standard-name table, we could reduce the list to a few examples, i.e. 137Cs, 90Sr (aerosols, important fallout isotopes), 131I (gas), 133Xe (noble gas), 242m1Am (several metastates). But these are only examples and I would start using the other names, too. Best regards, Heiko On 2018-01-31 16:02, [email protected] wrote: > Dear Heiko et al, > > Many thanks for your proposals for volcanic and isotope names and for all the > comments in the discussion. I think the patterns of the names that have been > agreed look fine, also the mixed case naming convention for the isotopes. > >> mass_concentration_of_volcanic_ash_in_air >> canonical units: g/m^3 >> description: Mass concentration means mass per unit volume and is used in >> the construction mass_concentration_of_X_in_Y, where X is a material >> constituent >> of Y. "Volcanic_ash" means the fine-grained products of explosive volcanic >> eruptions, such as minerals or crystals, older fragmented rock (e.g. >> andesite), and >> glass. Particles within a volcanic ash cloud have diameters less than 2 mm. >> "Volcanic_ash" does not include non-volcanic dust. >> > I suggest the canonical units should be kg m-3 as for other > mass_concentration names. It would still be fine to use g m-3 in your files. > Okay? Of course, kg should be the canonical unit. > >> >> Radioactivity (without naming the isotopes, general case): >> >> radioactivity_concentration_in_air >> Bq/m3 >> Radioactivity concentration means activity per unit volume where activity >> denotes the number of decays of the material per second. >> > This looks fine. I suggest a minor tweak to separate the sentences defining > 'radioactivity' and 'radioactivity_concentration' (this makes them easier to > reuse in other definitions): > ' "Radioactivity" means the number of radioactive decays of a material per > second. "Radioactivity concentration" means radioactivity per unit volume of > the medium.' > Okay? Agreed. > >> surface_radioactivity_content >> Bq/m2 >> "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere. "Content" >> indicates a quantity per unit area. Radioactivity of X means the number of >> radioactive decays per second. >> > This looks fine. I suggest minor changes to the definition: > 'The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere. > "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. "Radioactivity" means the > number of radioactive decays of a material per second.' > Okay? Ok > >> integral_wrt_time_of_radioactivity_concentration_in_air >> Bq*s/m3 >> The phrase "integral_wrt_X_of_Y" means int Y dX. The data variable should >> have an axis for X specifying the limits of the integral as bounds. "wrt" >> means with >> respect to. Radioactivity concentration means activity per unit volume >> where activity denotes the number of decays per second. >> > This looks fine. I suggest minor changes to the definition: > 'The phrase "integral_wrt_X_of_Y" means int Y dX. The data variable should > have an axis for X specifying the limits of the integral as bounds. The > phrase "wrt" means "with respect to". "Radioactivity" means the number of > radioactive decays of a material per second. "Radioactivity concentration" > means radioactivity per unit volume of the medium.' > Okay? Ok > >> When naming the isotope, the names are: >> radioactivity_concentration_of_X_in_air >> surface_radioactivity_content_of_X >> integral_wrt_time_of_radioactivity_concentration_of_X_in_air >> with X denoting the isotope as 210mPo. >> > > On a general point, the discussion raised the question of whether we should > allow mixed case standard names. Certainly the conventions only say that they > are case sensitive and we do in fact have one existing standard name that > includes an upper case character, photolysis_rate_of_ozone_to_1D_oxygen_atom, > so we have a precedent for doing this. I'm not aware of any problems caused > by the existing name, and particularly in view of the current proposals I > think the standard name guidelines document should be amended - I'm happy to > come up with an alternative wording. > > On 17th January Heiko provided a list of 1086 isotope standard names. There > then followed some discussion regarding how many names are needed for > immediate use. Just to clarify, Heiko, are you still proposing all the names > in your original list? I don't foresee any major technical problems with > handling this number of names - it should be possible to do a bulk upload > to create the individual entries in my vocabulary editor. > > Best wishes, > Alison > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > -- Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
isotopes.xlsx
Description: MS-Excel 2007 spreadsheet
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
