Hello CF -
This request for standard names for sediment trap data variables seems
to have languished since mid-December. Are we waiting for Matthias to
respond to comments from Roy and Jonathan, or are we ready to make
a decision?
I may have left out some of the messages on the thread, which were not
included in the last round of emails.
Regards - Nan
On 12/9/13 7:17 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> My reason for including 'total' in these cases is because I've seen it used in that way by communities handling those particular parameters. Question is whether we follow CF past practice or established usage outside CF. I would prefer to follow community practice, but don't see inclusion/exclusion of total as a show-stopper. Jonathan and I (not for the first time) make the opinion score 1 all. Anybody else any views on this?
>
> Cheers, Roy.
> ________________________________________
> From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory [j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk]
> Sent: 08 December 2013 00:01
> Subject: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
>
> Dear Roy
>
>> Thinking about it over night (I'm currently in San Diego), I think a way forward might be to use the word 'total' in all cases, but define is as 'in every form', which provides a common denominator between these two usages.
> Yes, that's possible, but even simpler is to say that if nothing is specified,
> the *default* is "in every form". I think that is the approach we have usually
> taken, although I can't think of examples off the top of my head. I would note,
> however, that there is only one existing standard name containing the word
> "total" viz
> sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale
> in which "total" appears because it is the technical name of that scale.
> (And I'm in Toronto on the way to San Francisco.)
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> On 12/6/13 3:24 PM, Matthias Lankhorst wrote:
>> 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
--
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 *
*******************************************************
Received on Wed Feb 04 2015 - 08:05:56 GMT
