Hi,
I would like to bring this discussion about new standard names for sediment
trap data to a conclusion. I think what we learned from the discussion was
that:
- we should keep "sinking" in there, rather than "downward"
- we should not include "sediment_trap" wording in the names
- uncertainty remains wrt wording of silicon, silica, ...
- uncertainty remains wrt including isotope ratio information
As far as I can tell, the following are not subject to the above
uncertainties. Are there any objections to declaring victory and accepting
these into the official names list:
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_carbon_in_sea_water
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_nitrogen_in_sea_water
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_nitrogen_in_sea_water
Uncertainties still need to be resolved before proceeding with my other
suggestions below (and possible amendments thereof):
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_XXX_in_sea_water, where XXX is:
- aluminum
- iron
- phosphorous
- silica
- biogenic_silica
- lithogenic_silica
- calcium
- titanium
- manganese
- barium
- magnesium
Respectfully, Matthias
On Monday, October 14, 2013 04:15:11 am Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
>
> It is indeed an established principle that Standard Names identify the
> geophysical phenomenon and not how the parameter were measured. Hence my
> later posting, which aimed to decouple composition terms from
> 'sinking_flux'.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Thomas Trull [Tom.Trull at utas.edu.au]
> Sent: 14 October 2013 08:39
> To: Lowry, Roy K.; Maureen Conte
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu; mlankhorst
> Subject: RE: standard names for sediment trap data
>
> So, perhaps, the first part of the name could be ?sediment_trap??
> Allowing:
> sediment_trap_sinking_flux_.... with units of kg m-2 s-1
> and
> sediment_trap_composition_.... with other units
>
> One reason to consider this is that there are other ways of measuring
> sinking fluxes than via sediment traps. But perhaps names are more
> intended to reflect measured variables rather than modes of measurement.
>
>
>
> From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, 12 October 2013 05:39
> To: Maureen Conte
> Cc: Thomas Trull; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu; mlankhorst
> Subject: RE: standard names for sediment trap data
>
> Hi Maureen,
>
> I thought that might be the case, in which case I don't think the
> suggestion fits with Standard Name principles, which require a match to
> 'canonical units'. In my view, anything tagged 'sinking_flux' should have
> canonical units of either kg/m2/s or moles/m2/s.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maureen Conte [mconte at mbl.edu]
> Sent: 11 October 2013 17:41
> To: Lowry, Roy K.
> Cc: Thomas Trull;
> cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>; OceanSITES Data
> Management Team; mlankhorst Subject: Re: standard names for sediment trap
> data
> Hi all- Nice to hear from you Roy! Technically right- I was following on
> Matthais's use of "sinking_flux" to denote sediment trap data. Maureen
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Roy K. Lowry" <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>>
> To: "Maureen Conte" <mconte at mbl.edu<mailto:mconte at mbl.edu>>, "Thomas Trull"
> <Tom.Trull at utas.edu.au<mailto:Tom.Trull at utas.edu.au>> Cc:
> cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>, "OceanSITES
> Data Management Team"
> <oceansites-dmt at jcommops.org<mailto:oceansites-dmt at jcommops.org>>,
> "mlankhorst" <mlankhorst at ucsd.edu<mailto:mlankhorst at ucsd.edu>> Sent:
> Friday, October 11, 2013 3:31:51 AM
> Subject: RE: standard names for sediment trap data
>
> Hello Maureen,
>
> Been a while since BOFS! A systematic approach attempting to cover all
> bases isn't the established CF Standard Name management approach - it's a
> much more responsive way of doing things.
>
> I'm also a little unclear about some of your proposals. For example,
> consider 'sinking_flux_isotope ratio_nitrogen_total_15_14'. To me, a
> sinking flux as canonical units of mass/quantity per unit area per unit
> time and the concept of a ratio per unit area per unit time doesn't make
> sense. Do you mean the isotopic ratio in the particulate material
> comprising the sinking flux? If so, it needs to be described more like
> '15/14_ratio_of_total_nitrogen_in_SPM'. However, the is off-topic for
> Matthias's request which is to cover mass of a range of species sinking
> though unit area per unit time.
>
> I would also say to Tom that people should be allowed to express as
> biogenic silica (aka opal), lithogenic silica or silicon (with Standard
> Names to suit) depending on their analytical procedure. This avoids issues
> - that I have known get controversial - such as conversion of opal to
> elemental silicon.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> ________________________________
> From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Maureen
> Conte [mconte at mbl.edu] Sent: 10 October 2013 13:49
> To: Thomas Trull
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>; OceanSITES
> Data Management Team; mlankhorst Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names
> for sediment trap data
>
>
> Hi Matthias
>
> I like Tom's suggestion for naming sediment trap data. It is very clear and
> matches the organization of most sediment trap data. However, I suggest
> using "massflux", "concentration" and "isotope ratio" as delimiters as
> these are well defined terms and unambiguous (I assume there is a
> descriptive file associated with the data that provides the units?). Also,
> as most elements aren't divided into "lithogenic", "biogenic" etc.,
> perhaps switching the order makes more sense, so all the elements would be
> at the same hierarchical unit, using "total" when elements are not
> separated into operational fractions, ie
>
> sinking_flux_massflux_silicon_lithogenic
> sinking_flux_concentration_silicon_lithogenic
> sinking_flux_isotope ratio_silicon_lithogenic_30_28
> sinking_flux_isotope ratio_carbon_organic_13_12
> sinking_flux_isotope ratio_nitrogen_total_15_14
>
> Cheers
> Maureen Conte
> (PI of the Oceanic Flux Program time-series)
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Thomas Trull" <Tom.Trull at utas.edu.au<mailto:Tom.Trull at utas.edu.au>>
> To: "<mlankhorst at ucsd.edu<mailto:mlankhorst at ucsd.edu>>"
> <mlankhorst at ucsd.edu<mailto:mlankhorst at ucsd.edu>> Cc:
> cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>, "OceanSITES
> Data Management Team"
> <oceansites-dmt at jcommops.org<mailto:oceansites-dmt at jcommops.org>> Sent:
> Thursday, October 10, 2013 5:28:08 AM
> Subject: Re: standard names for sediment trap data
>
> Hi Matthias,
> I like your proposed canonical units and terms. The names are also
> systematic and clear. I do not see the need to include the word total
> when an elemental flux is not split into molecular or other components.
> Items that I think might need further consideration: 1. In the list of XXX
> items, would it be clearer to specify silicon rather than silica for all
> terms related to silica (since the molecular composition of lithogenic,
> biogenic silica forms are often unknown)? Or do we have to write XXX as
> '_biogenic_silica_as_silicon' 2. Is it worth settling on a standard
> approach to isotopic (and other) compositions ? For example, 13C-POC.
> Units of flux rather than composition would be somewhat unusual for
> isotopes, making variables starting with 'sinking_mass_flux' somewhat odd.
> That is unfortunate, since indicating sinking flux as the overall sample
> type seems to be the top category worth retaining. One way around this
> would be a slight reordering to two groups of variables, e.g.:
> sinking_flux_mass_lithogenic_silicon
> sinking_flux_composition_lithogenic_silicon_isotopic_ratio_30_28
>
> Or is that clumsy?
>
> Of course we could force all compositional information (isotopes, diatom
> species relative abundances, etc. )into mass flux units, with satisfyingly
> simple units, but then they all have to be reconverted into units people
> want to use. This would mean carrying absolute isotopic abundance for
> standards within the files for completeness.
>
> As usual there are many ways to skin a cat, but none are easy when the cat
> sees you coming!
>
> Best wishes,
> Tom
>
>
> On 10/10/2013, at 10:16, "Matthias Lankhorst"
> <mlankhorst at ucsd.edu<mailto:mlankhorst at ucsd.edu>> wrote:
>
> Dear CF community,
>
> in the OceanSITES project, we would like to publish data from sediment
> traps in files, using the CF conventions. Sediment traps are devices
> moored underwater in the ocean, which collect sinking particles (detritus)
> in a funnel and into sample bottles for later analyses. Analyses can be
> done for a variety of substances. It looks like we need a few more
> standard names for these, and possibly a discussion whether some of them
> should be expressed as mass fluxes or as substance amount (mole) fluxes.
>
> I noticed that CF already has these standard names, all as mole fluxes with
> canonical units of mol m-2 s-1:
>
> sinking_mole_flux_of_aragonite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_calcite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_iron_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_
> water sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_phosphorus_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_silicon_in_sea_water
>
> Here is the list of quantities that we need to address in OceanSITES. My
> initial proposal is to introduce them all as mass fluxes with canonical
> units of kg m-2 s-1. If we should rather go with mole fluxes like the ones
> above, please chime in.
>
> Total/organic mass:
> Propose new standard names:
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water
> (I suppose these are understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after water has
> evaporated.)
>
> Particulate organic, inorganic, total carbon:
> Propose new standard names:
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_carbon_in_sea_water
> (or should we include "total" somewhere in the latter?)
>
> Particulate organic, inorganic, total nitrogen:
> Propose new standard names:
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_nitrogen_in_sea_water
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_nitrogen_in_sea_water
> (or should we include "total" somewhere in the latter?)
>
> Other particulate substances from a list:
> Propose new standard names for each of the following, to be constructed as:
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_XXX_in_sea_water,
> where XXX is:
> - aluminum
> - iron
> - phosphorous
> - silica
> - biogenic_silica
> - lithogenic_silica
> - calcium
> - titanium
> - manganese
> - barium
> - magnesium
>
> Your expert comments are highly appreciated!
>
> Respectfully, Matthias
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________
>
> Dr. Matthias Lankhorst
> Scripps Institution of Oceanography
> 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0230
> La Jolla, CA 92093-0230
> USA
>
> Phone: +1 858 822 5013
> Fax: +1 858 534 9820
> E-Mail: mlankhorst at ucsd.edu<mailto:mlankhorst at ucsd.edu>
> http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~mlankhorst/
>
>
> Cliquez sur l'url suivante
> https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/lY1WG0lkPnzGX2PQPOmvUpJBCTqJzJUe2yY2IM9UP7ZY
> +SeOyXIDbMOdGGRUOm5ehsBIKC7m4TwFoPzuIXnePg== si ce message est ind?sirable
> (pourriel).
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *******************************************
> Dr. Maureen H. Conte
> Ecosystems Center
> MBL
> Woods Hole MA 02543
> 508/289-7744 (office)
> 508/457-1548 (FAX)
> mconte at mbl.edu<mailto:mconte at mbl.edu>
> http://ecosystems.mbl.edu/conte/index.html
> *******************************************
>
> ________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> *******************************************
> Dr. Maureen H. Conte
> Ecosystems Center
> MBL
> Woods Hole MA 02543
> 508/289-7744 (office)
> 508/457-1548 (FAX)
> mconte at mbl.edu<mailto:mconte at mbl.edu>
> http://ecosystems.mbl.edu/conte/index.html
> *******************************************
>
> ________________________________
> 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.
>
> ________________________________
> 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.
--
_______________________________________
Dr. Matthias Lankhorst
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0230
La Jolla, CA 92093-0230
USA
Phone: +1 858 822 5013
Fax: +1 858 534 9820
E-Mail: mlankhorst at ucsd.edu
http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~mlankhorst/
Received on Fri Dec 06 2013 - 13:24:23 GMT
