Hi All,
We're in the process of including the AOU variable in the World Ocean Atlas
2013. Before we archive the data, it would be really nice to have a
consensus on the standard name for
apparent_oxygen_utilization.
Could the CF community kindly vote on this?
Thanks,
Ajay
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:03 AM, <cf-metadata-request at cgd.ucar.edu> wrote:
> Send CF-metadata mailing list submissions to
> cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cf-metadata-request at cgd.ucar.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cf-metadata-owner at cgd.ucar.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CF-metadata digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name:
> apparent_oxygen_utilization (Nan Galbraith)
> 2. Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name:
> apparent_oxygen_utilization (Jonathan Gregory)
> 3. Editing/publishing workflow update (Hattersley, Richard)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:20:54 -0500
> From: Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name:
> apparent_oxygen_utilization
> Message-ID: <54C64D46.5020400 at whoi.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> The terms that have been suggested (like
> difference_of_oxygen_per_unit_mass_
> in_sea_water_from_saturation) are more descriptive of the method of
> measurement
> and calculation than of the concept being described, apparent oxygen
> utilization,
> so I have to respectfully disagree.
>
> I think there are precedents for allowing a concept like 'apparent
> oxygen utilization'
> to be used as a standard name, in preference to describing measurement and
> calculation methods in these terms.
>
> Some examples are richardson_number_in_sea_water,
> atmosphere_dry_energy_content,
> atmosphere_convective_inhibition_wrt_surface - these all describe the
> calculations in
> their definitions, not in the names themselves.
>
> Regards -
> Nan
>
>
> On 1/21/15 1:46 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> > Dear Nan
> >
> > Sorry to be awkward, but it doesn't change my opinion. CF standard names
> are
> > often not the terms which are customarily used in the expert communities
> > themselves. They're not really names, but explanations, in many cases.
> This
> > is in no way to underrate the expertise of the people concerned, but to
> make
> > things clear. For example, in atmospheric science, there is a quantity
> which
> > most people would recognise by the name of omega. But that's not at all
> self-
> > explanatory and the same letter is used in other fields for different
> things,
> > so its standard name is lagrangian_tendency_of_air_pressure, which
> answers
> > the question, "What is omega?", rather than being the customary jargon
> term.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > ----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu> -----
> >
> >> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:35:36 -0500
> >> From: Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
> >> To:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> >> Subject: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name:
> >> apparent_oxygen_utilization
> >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
> rv:1.9.2.28)
> >> Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20
> >>
> >> Hi all -
> >>
> >> I received this follow-up from Ajay, and thought it would be OK
> >> to share it with the list. I wasn't aware of it, but 'apparent oxygen
> >> utilization' seems to be a well-defined term in oceanography.
> >>
> >> Not sure if this changes others' opinions, but it does change mine.
> >>
> >> Regards -
> >> Nan
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
> >> apparent_oxygen_utilization
> >> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:24:25 -0500
> >> From: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate<ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov>
> >> To: Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Nan,
> >>
> >> I posed your question to the Science team that requested the
> >> standard name and this was their response:
> >>
> >> Maybe it is better to stick to a citable reference. No additional
> >> description of what AOU is necessary, in my opinion. But if one is
> >> needed, I can slightly modify Tim's version
> >>
> >> AOU, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, is defined as the difference
> >> between the saturation oxygen concentration at 1 atmosphere and the
> >> observed oxygen concentration (Broecker and Peng, 1982)
> >>
> >> Broecker, W. S. and T. H. Peng (1982), Tracers in the Sea,
> >> Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, N. Y.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:21:57 -0500 (EST)
> >> From: Tim Boyer <tim.boyer at noaa.gov <mailto:tim.boyer at noaa.gov>>
> >> To: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate <ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov
> >> <mailto:ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov>>
> >> Subject: Re: Fwd: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
> >> apparent_oxygen_utilization
> >>
> >> Ajay,
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> AOU is a standard calculation made by oceanographers to
> >> estimate non-physical usage of oxygen - non-physical
> >> meaning biological uptake/release and chemical reaction.
> >> Physically, it is assumed that oxygen will be saturated
> >> at the surface with respects to the atmosphere through physical
> >> processes and therefore only non-physical processes can alter
> oxygen
> >> content from saturation state. If Nan (or Hernan) would like to
> >> suggest a change or addition to the definition, thats
> >> fine.
> >>
> >> As for whether AOU should be defined somewhere else,
> >> cell method or standard name modifier - that is something
> >> for you CF experts to decide. Please ask Nan to propose
> >> such a definition.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu
> >> <mailto:ngalbraith at whoi.edu>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Ajay -
> >>
> >> This looks, at first glance, like a too-specific term; the
> >> definition doesn't
> >> carry as much information as the proposed standard name itself.
> What I
> >> mean, specifically is, aren't there times when the difference
> >> between saturation
> >> oxygen and observed oxygen are NOT a measure of oxygen utilization?
> >>
> >> And, isn't there an existing method to describe a value that
> >> represents a
> >> difference such as this? Standard name modifier, or cell method,
> >> I'm not
> >> sure which ... sorry I can't look more closely at this right now!
> >>
> >> Regards - Nan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/14/15 11:54 AM, Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> I had requested for a new standard name for
> >>> apparent_oxygen_utilization during the last week of November.
> >>> Since, there have been no discussions on it, I wanted to quickly
> >>> follow up on it.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Ajay
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate
> >>> <ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov <mailto:ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear CF community,
> >>>
> >>> On behalf of NODC, I would like to request for a new standard
> >>> name:
> >>>
> >>> apparent_oxygen_utiliziation (AOU)
> >>> definition: the difference between saturation oxygen content
> >>> and observed oxygen content.
> >>> units: micromoles/kg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Description is from Broecker and Peng, 1982, Tracers in
> >>> the Sea
> >>>
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~broecker/Home_files/TracersInTheSea_searchable.pdf
> >>> <
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/%7Ebroecker/Home_files/TracersInTheSea_searchable.pdf
> >
> >>> (pp 131-138)
> >>>
> >>> Some more detail in Garcia et al., World Ocean Atlas
> >>> Volume 3: Dissolved Oxygen, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, and
> >>> Oxygen Saturation.
> >>> http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/WOA13/DOC/woa13_vol3.pdf
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Ajay
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> -- *******************************************************
> >> * Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist *
> >> * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
> >> * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
> >> * Woods Hole, MA 02543(508) 289-2444 <tel:%28508%29%20289-2444> *
> >> *******************************************************
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CF-metadata mailing list
> >> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> > ----- End forwarded message -----
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> >
>
>
> --
> *******************************************************
> * Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist *
> * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
> * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
> * Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 *
> *******************************************************
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:35:22 +0000
> From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name:
> apparent_oxygen_utilization
> Message-ID: <20150126173522.GB7604 at met.reading.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Dear Nan
>
> Yes, there are standard_names which are not self-explanatory, I agree. But
> I
> think that in the standard_name table the advantage of being
> self-explanatory
> outweighs the disadvantage of being longer and less familiar. The
> standard_name
> table has a particular purpose of helping to describe quantities so that
> people
> with different sources of data can work out if their quantities are "the
> same
> thing" for the purpose of intercomparison. That's why we may use different
> and
> more explicit terms from the ones that experts in various domains use among
> themselves.
>
> Yours equally respectfully
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu> -----
>
> > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:20:54 -0500
> > From: Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
> > To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name:
> > apparent_oxygen_utilization
> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:31.0)
> > Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
> >
> > The terms that have been suggested (like
> > difference_of_oxygen_per_unit_mass_
> > in_sea_water_from_saturation) are more descriptive of the method of
> > measurement
> > and calculation than of the concept being described, apparent oxygen
> > utilization,
> > so I have to respectfully disagree.
> >
> > I think there are precedents for allowing a concept like 'apparent
> > oxygen utilization'
> > to be used as a standard name, in preference to describing measurement
> and
> > calculation methods in these terms.
> >
> > Some examples are richardson_number_in_sea_water,
> > atmosphere_dry_energy_content,
> > atmosphere_convective_inhibition_wrt_surface - these all describe
> > the calculations in
> > their definitions, not in the names themselves.
> >
> > Regards -
> > Nan
> >
> >
> > On 1/21/15 1:46 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> > >Dear Nan
> > >
> > >Sorry to be awkward, but it doesn't change my opinion. CF standard
> names are
> > >often not the terms which are customarily used in the expert communities
> > >themselves. They're not really names, but explanations, in many cases.
> This
> > >is in no way to underrate the expertise of the people concerned, but to
> make
> > >things clear. For example, in atmospheric science, there is a quantity
> which
> > >most people would recognise by the name of omega. But that's not at all
> self-
> > >explanatory and the same letter is used in other fields for different
> things,
> > >so its standard name is lagrangian_tendency_of_air_pressure, which
> answers
> > >the question, "What is omega?", rather than being the customary jargon
> term.
> > >
> > >Best wishes
> > >
> > >Jonathan
> > >
> > >----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu> -----
> > >
> > >>Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:35:36 -0500
> > >>From: Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
> > >>To:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > >>Subject: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name:
> > >> apparent_oxygen_utilization
> > >>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
> rv:1.9.2.28)
> > >> Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20
> > >>
> > >>Hi all -
> > >>
> > >>I received this follow-up from Ajay, and thought it would be OK
> > >>to share it with the list. I wasn't aware of it, but 'apparent oxygen
> > >>utilization' seems to be a well-defined term in oceanography.
> > >>
> > >>Not sure if this changes others' opinions, but it does change mine.
> > >>
> > >>Regards -
> > >>Nan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>-------- Original Message --------
> > >>Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
> > >>apparent_oxygen_utilization
> > >>Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:24:25 -0500
> > >>From: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate<ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov>
> > >>To: Nan Galbraith<ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Hi Nan,
> > >>
> > >>I posed your question to the Science team that requested the
> > >>standard name and this was their response:
> > >>
> > >>Maybe it is better to stick to a citable reference. No additional
> > >>description of what AOU is necessary, in my opinion. But if one is
> > >>needed, I can slightly modify Tim's version
> > >>
> > >>AOU, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, is defined as the difference
> > >>between the saturation oxygen concentration at 1 atmosphere and the
> > >>observed oxygen concentration (Broecker and Peng, 1982)
> > >>
> > >>Broecker, W. S. and T. H. Peng (1982), Tracers in the Sea,
> > >>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, N. Y.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:21:57 -0500 (EST)
> > >> From: Tim Boyer <tim.boyer at noaa.gov <mailto:tim.boyer at noaa.gov>>
> > >> To: Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate <ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov
> > >> <mailto:ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov>>
> > >> Subject: Re: Fwd: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
> > >> apparent_oxygen_utilization
> > >>
> > >> Ajay,
> > >>
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >> AOU is a standard calculation made by oceanographers to
> > >> estimate non-physical usage of oxygen - non-physical
> > >> meaning biological uptake/release and chemical reaction.
> > >> Physically, it is assumed that oxygen will be saturated
> > >> at the surface with respects to the atmosphere through physical
> > >> processes and therefore only non-physical processes can alter
> oxygen
> > >> content from saturation state. If Nan (or Hernan) would like to
> > >> suggest a change or addition to the definition, thats
> > >> fine.
> > >>
> > >> As for whether AOU should be defined somewhere else,
> > >> cell method or standard name modifier - that is something
> > >> for you CF experts to decide. Please ask Nan to propose
> > >> such a definition.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Tim
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu
> > >><mailto:ngalbraith at whoi.edu>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi, Ajay -
> > >>
> > >> This looks, at first glance, like a too-specific term; the
> > >> definition doesn't
> > >> carry as much information as the proposed standard name itself.
> What I
> > >> mean, specifically is, aren't there times when the difference
> > >> between saturation
> > >> oxygen and observed oxygen are NOT a measure of oxygen utilization?
> > >>
> > >> And, isn't there an existing method to describe a value that
> > >> represents a
> > >> difference such as this? Standard name modifier, or cell method,
> > >> I'm not
> > >> sure which ... sorry I can't look more closely at this right now!
> > >>
> > >> Regards - Nan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 1/14/15 11:54 AM, Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
> > >>> Hi All,
> > >>>
> > >>> I had requested for a new standard name for
> > >>> apparent_oxygen_utilization during the last week of November.
> > >>> Since, there have been no discussions on it, I wanted to quickly
> > >>> follow up on it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Ajay
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Ajay Krishnan - NOAA Affiliate
> > >>> <ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov <mailto:ajay.krishnan at noaa.gov>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Dear CF community,
> > >>>
> > >>> On behalf of NODC, I would like to request for a new standard
> > >>> name:
> > >>>
> > >>> apparent_oxygen_utiliziation (AOU)
> > >>> definition: the difference between saturation oxygen content
> > >>> and observed oxygen content.
> > >>> units: micromoles/kg
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Description is from Broecker and Peng, 1982, Tracers in
> > >>> the Sea
> > >>>
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~broecker/Home_files/TracersInTheSea_searchable.pdf
> > >>> <
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/%7Ebroecker/Home_files/TracersInTheSea_searchable.pdf
> >
> > >>> (pp 131-138)
> > >>>
> > >>> Some more detail in Garcia et al., World Ocean Atlas
> > >>> Volume 3: Dissolved Oxygen, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, and
> > >>> Oxygen Saturation.
> > >>> http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/WOA13/DOC/woa13_vol3.pdf
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Ajay
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> -- *******************************************************
> > >> * Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist *
> > >> * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
> > >> * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
> > >> * Woods Hole, MA 02543(508) 289-2444 <tel:%28508%29%20289-2444>
> *
> > >> *******************************************************
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>CF-metadata mailing list
> > >>CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > >>http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> > >----- End forwarded message -----
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >CF-metadata mailing list
> > >CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > >http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *******************************************************
> > * Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist *
> > * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
> > * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
> > * Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 *
> > *******************************************************
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:03:48 +0000
> From: "Hattersley, Richard" <richard.hattersley at metoffice.gov.uk>
> To: CF Metadata List <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: [CF-metadata] Editing/publishing workflow update
> Message-ID:
> <
> 21A2C87797FA6042B162A8A0A11A15DB07029887 at EXXCMPD1DAG2.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear all,
>
> Summary for the time-pressed reader:
> - Some of us would like to simplify the workflow for editing the CF
> conventions.
> - I've made a work-in-progress demo here:
> http://cf-metadata.github.io/cf-conventions.html.
> - The demo is automatically built from AsciiDoc sources here:
> https://github.com/cf-metadata/cf-conventions-asciidoc
> - Feedback welcome! What's the appetite for exploring further?
>
> I've recently delved back into the options for simplifying and automating
> the workflow for modifying the CF conventions document. This is in the
> light of some useful discussion early last year, and a friendly nudge from
> Rich Signell (thanks Rich!).
>
> In general, this has been an encouraging exploration. Fortunately we are
> not at the technological vanguard of the publishing world - others with
> greater resources (e.g. O'Reilly) have already paved the way. As a result I
> believe we can achieve a very workable solution based around the AsciiDoc
> format<http://asciidoctor.org/docs/what-is-asciidoc/>.
>
> There are three main problems I've been looking at:
>
> 1. How to get from the current DocBook sources to AsciiDoc?
>
> 2. How to make the authoring/reviewing process easier?
>
> 3. How to convert AsciiDoc to HTML and PDF?
>
> To get from DocBook to AsciiDoc I have extended an existing solution<
> https://github.com/rhattersley/docbook2asciidoc> from O'Reilly. They use
> the AsciiDoc format in their Atlas publishing platform so they have already
> done most of the hard work. Where possible I'd like to get my extensions
> merged into their original.
>
> The authoring/reviewing process relies on GitHub pull requests and their
> built-in support for rendering AsciiDoc. This provides a good preview of
> the document (although some features of the final HTML output are not
> rendered), and an inline reviewing system. (NB. I've split the document
> into multiple files, but that is not essential.) Once a change has been
> accepted the corresponding HTML (and eventually PDF) is automatically
> rebuilt and pushed to the demo website.
>
> To get from AsciiDoc to HTML/PDF I have used the excellent asciidoctor<
> http://asciidoctor.org/> software for HTML and a sister project for PDF.
> The HTML support is excellent but the PDF solution is less mature (there is
> an alternative which might do better). That said, both projects are under
> active support/development and are open to contribution.
>
> Questions, feedback, encouragement, offers of assistance and/or beer ...
> they're all welcome! ;-)
>
>
> Richard Hattersley AVD Expert Software Developer
> Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 (0)1392 885702 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
> Email: richard.hattersley at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:
> richard.hattersley at metoffice.gov.uk> Website: www.metoffice.gov.uk<
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150127/c04e2329/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of CF-metadata Digest, Vol 141, Issue 8
> *******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150203/8138f96a/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Tue Feb 03 2015 - 08:28:22 GMT
