Hello Matthias,
I'm comfortable with that group of 8. Only possible change I would suggest is to use total_carbon (=organic+inorganic in its definition) and total_nitrogen in names 5 and 8 to make it totally clear what is meant. I'm also of the opinion that your other suggestions aren't far off. My guidance on the others:
iron to total_iron (defined as all oxidation states)
silica to total_silica (defined as biogenic + lithogenic)
manganese to total_manganese (defined as all oxidation states)
Cheers, Roy.
________________________________________
From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Matthias Lankhorst [mlankhorst at ucsd.edu]
Sent: 06 December 2013 20:24
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
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/
_______________________________________________
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.
Received on Fri Dec 06 2013 - 13:48:35 GMT
