Sorry for the re-post. I'd forgotten to change the subject and I didn't
want this to be lost in the scores of emails going through the CF listserv.
Regards,
Ajay
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/20150203/335478dd/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Tue Feb 03 2015 - 09:58:08 GMT
