: 25 March 2013 09:00
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] proposed standard names for Enterococcus
and?Clostridium perfringens
Dear all
I agree with Philip that cfu should be spelled out. I was also going to make
the same point about Roy's proposal being different from our
Dear Roy
I think it would be fine and preferable to use someone else's controlled
vocabulary so long as it has an appropriate format and content and/or we
can define rules for using it in CF.
Best wishes
Jonathan
___
CF-metadata mailing list
Hi all -
Species taxonomies are not like chemical vocabularies, in that terms for
organisms change over time. There are some big projects involved in
maintaining these taxonomies, and we probably don't want to commit
to launching a parallel effort.
The ubio project has a decent description of
Of
Jonathan Gregory [j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk]
Sent: 25 March 2013 09:00
To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] proposed standard names for Enterococcus
and?Clostridium perfringens
Dear all
I agree with Philip that cfu should be spelled out. I was also going to
make
the same
+1 Nan, great summary
CF should prepare for the day when it needs to interoperate with multiple
authorities, e.g., 2 different species vocabularies. It will not be possible
for one vocabulary to serve all the scientific needs. We are on the right
track here, let's see if we can solve the
Hi.
This sounds like a good plan. I think there should be an attribute with a
specific name to carry the taxonomic details. It probably will occur in the
long name as well, but I don't like the idea of making the long name the
official repository for that information. It's not my arena, so
Hi folks. I don't know if you received what I sent early about IOOS
Biological Data services termnilogy and Darwin Core standards.
If you want to create your own vocab go ahead. we will keep talking to our
self. I think there is now an opportunity to figure out how to talk between
CF and Darwin
On 03/21/2013 02:12 PM, John Maurer wrote:
I believe the
canonical units in UDUNITS parlance would translate to m-3, which is
what I find in the standard name table for other number_concentration_*
quantities.
Yup. If the dimension of the physical quantity is number per volume,
then the SI
] proposed standard names for Enterococcus and Clostridium
perfringens
Aloha CF group,
I would like to propose the following standard names related to water quality
measurements of the bacteria Enterococcus and Clostridium perfringens:
number_concentration_of_enterococcus_in_sea_water
On 03/22/2013 03:57 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
An additional point is that I would prefer not to have the semantics of
what was measured encoded into the units of measure.
I couldn't agree more. The NIST also agrees. See sections 7.4 and 7.5 of
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec07.html.
Aloha CF group,
I would like to propose the following standard names related to water
quality measurements of the bacteria *Enterococcus *and *Clostridium
perfringens*:
number_concentration_of_enterococcus_in_sea_water
number_concentration_of_clostridium_perfringens_in_sea_water
These are
11 matches
Mail list logo
