Hi Bryan,
We have the technology and some of the content. I have been maintaining a mapping between the Parameter Discovery Vocabulary (PDV) used by SeaDataNet and Standard Names to allow us to automatically populate SeaDataNet metadata documents from CF data files. (I do have to confess that doing this for the version 12 new term explosion is currently in my 'pending' tray).
The PDV is populated with grouping terms like 'Metal concentrations in the atmosphere', which is represented by the URL
http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/term/P021/current/MTAT The resulting document gives matches to about 25 Standard Names (the URLs with 'P071' in them) as well as GCMD (P041), SeaDataNet parameter groups (P031) ISO topic categories (P051) and BODC usage vocabulary terms (P011).
The grouping terms and mappings have been done by me and are therefore limited by my knowledge of the atmospheric science domain. Suggestions for additional grouping terms (together with the Standard Names that should be included) or suggestions for modifications to what I've already done from the CF community would be welcomed.
Cheers, Roy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Lawrence [mailto:bryan.lawrence at stfc.ac.uk]
Sent: 29 July 2009 09:56
To: Lowry, Roy K
Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard name definitions ... are these formal or flexible
Hi Roy
Glad that it looks like Steve's specfiic problem isn't a problem given the name change and definition you found.
However:
You've opened Pandora's box a bit (we've been hammering around the edges for a while).
I can feel the o-word coming on ...
It's been incoming in the family chemistry sense, and in clouds, and anywhere where we have a geophysical quantity that has a generic type and specific sub-types. In the chemistry case it's about what equations the model can support, and in the observation cases it can be about distinguishing between what can be observed - some things can only observe/simulate at the generic level, others at more specific levels.
My feeling is that people should mark up their data with standard names that most accurate define what has been measured (but not how). However, to compare things in this situation we need the relationships between the standard names ... so folk wanting to compare apples and oranges can do so at the fruit level.
> containing two types of 'chlorophyll' with the expectation that the Standard Name will identify and >distinguish them. Do we need some expectation management to discourage this?
Well, no, if they are two different types of chlorophyll then there should be two different standard names (or 176), but it should also be clear that they are types of chlorophyll ... and we should have a standard name for that, but the data wouldn't neeed to be marked up with it, that'd be implicit in the relationships that we standardise.
That seems like an obvious goal ...
Bryan
--
Bryan Lawrence
Director of Environmental Archival and Associated Research
(NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre and NCEO/NERC NEODC)
STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Phone +44 1235 445012; Fax ... 5848;
Web: home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence
--
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.
Received on Wed Jul 29 2009 - 03:18:23 BST
