OOI will be adopting and/or developing some standard vocabularies for many facets of instruments (manufacturer, model, 'type' (ick), possibly mount, likely a few other things. We'll be sure to take a good look at your vocabularies, Roy. I particularly recall the methodology vocabulary -- that seems closest to a pure answer to Jim's original question. (The instrument 'type' in :MBARI's SSDS was much more coupled to manufacturing practices -- "CTD" for example describing the type of configuration one can buy, and not much about methodology of a particular measurement.)
We'll also have to create or use an instrument description specification like yours, Nan. Can you tell me, what is instrument_reference? And (this may be a question showing off my ignorance) do I correctly understand that (time, depth) means you are identifying the instrument for every measurement, not just every depth?
So getting back to the original question, for automated sampling methodologies, I recall seeing at least one vocabulary that was particularly well suited, in addition to Roy's for a wide range of techniques. Nan, if your spec included TEMP_sensing_methodology for each variable, it would go a long way to a good answer, seems to me..
John
On Aug 26, 2011, at 07:06, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> Hi Nan,
>
> It would be really neat from my point of view if your ancillary variables were to include a link to a published vocabulary of instruments (in addition not instead of your existing fields). As you probably know, I can offer you one (http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/list/L22/)........
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Nan Galbraith
> Sent: 26 August 2011 14:58
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names
>
> I agree with Roy, that as long as the values can be reasonably
> compared they should share a standard name.
>
> It would be a good next step, though, to develop or adopt some
> standard way to describe the methodology, or at least the instrumentation,
> so that the user can allow for any distinction between e.g. microwave and
> infrared brightness_temperature.
>
> We're using an ancillary variable for this, but there may be some
> other way to do it that we haven't thought of yet. Whatever method
> is adopted (when/if one is) it needs to work for files that have data
> from different instruments at different depths.
>
> float TEMP(time, depth) ;
> TEMP:standard_name = "sea_water_temperature" ;
> TEMP:ancillary_variables =
> "TEMP_Instrument_manufacturer, TEMP_Instrument_model
> TEMP_Instrument_reference TEMP_Instrument_mount
> TEMP_Instrument_serial_number TEMP_QC TEMP_QC_value
> TEMP_QC_procedure TEMP_Accuracy TEMP_Precision TEMP_Resolution";
> char TEMP_Instrument_manufacturer(depth, 20);
> char TEMP_Instrument_model(depth,6);
> ...
>
> Nan
>
> On 8/26/11 9:05 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Not the first time this has cropped up on the CF list. The problem is that when the Standard Names started out they were designed as OPTIONAL terms to identify model fields that referred to a given geophysical phenomenon. There has been a sort of mission creep since then with standard names being considered by some as unique standardised labels for every data channel in a CF file, accelerated by some communities choosing to make Standard Names compulsory for their CF files. This of course creates the need for more and more information to get hung off the Standard Name tag.
>>
>> I continue to support the conclusion of these previous discussions, which is to keep methodologies out of Standard Names unless the methodology results in a significantly different phenomenon. There was quite a debate on this issue involving different types of sea surface temperature that you might care to look up in the archive.
>>
>> Cheers, Roy.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Biard
>> Sent: 26 August 2011 13:28
>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: [CF-metadata] A question regarding standard names
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I've got a general question regarding standard names. I have had people
>> I work with asking whether it would be acceptable to have a standard
>> name that included methodology, such as microwave_brightness_temperature
>> as opposed to infrared_brightness_temperature. My feeling has been that
>> standard names are not supposed to have such differentiators, but I
>> haven't read anything that states that directly. Are standard names for
>> measurements limited to "essential" descriptions, or can they include
>> specification of the way the measurement was acquired?
>>
>> Grace and peace,
>>
>> Jim Biard
>>
>
>
> --
> *******************************************************
> * Nan Galbraith (508) 289-2444 *
> * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
> * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
> * Woods Hole, MA 02543 *
> *******************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> 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
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
John Graybeal <mailto:jgraybeal at ucsd.edu>
phone: 858-534-2162
Product Manager
Ocean Observatories Initiative Cyberinfrastructure Project:
http://ci.oceanobservatories.org
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project:
http://marinemetadata.org
Received on Sat Aug 27 2011 - 16:51:10 BST
