This discussion has been ongoing a while (though with few participants), and I think it is valuable to the ocean community to resolve it quickly if possible.
After a quick round of on-line reading (and absent any uptake on creating an alias), I vote for using apparent_oxygen_utilization.
The key sentence for me was in Encyclopedia of Earth content: 'This is a method of estimating the amount of dissolved oxygen utilized by marine organisms via respiration, although it is termed "apparent" for a reason.' (Which it then explains, and contrasts to True Oxygen Utilization.) The fact the term is universally known, taught, and used in the oceanography realm; does not seem to have any ambiguous uses in other domains; and fairly well captures the gist of the concept, says to me it's OK to use it. Even if it is functional rather than naming.
I'd tweak the definition slightly:
> AOU, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, is defined as the difference between the saturation oxygen concentration in water at 1 atmosphere, and the observed oxygen concentration (e.g., Broecker and Peng, 1982). It is a standard calculation made by oceanographers to estimate non-physical effects on oxygen, where non-physical means biological processes (uptake/release and chemical reaction).
If it turns out in the future this name causes trouble, we have a mechanism to fix it. But I think the domain-specific name will benefit CF more than hurt it.
John
---------------
John Graybeal
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project:
http://marinemetadata.org
MMI Ontology Registry and Repository:
http://mmisw.org/orr
On Feb 2, 2015, at 07:02, Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu> wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> In the interest of getting a reply to Ajay, are we going to recommend the new
> standard name difference_of_oxygen_per_unit_mass_in_sea_water_from_saturation,
> as suggested by Jonathan? I suppose we can recommend that the BGC folks use
> their domain's preferred term, Apparent Oxygen Utilization, as a long name.
>
> I'll just make one last-ditch effort, by quoting Roy's email of 1/20/15, then I'll
> stop being disagreeable:
>> Wally Broecker's work is so well absorbed into biogeochemistry that we should respect his terminology.
>
> Cheers -
> Nan
>
>
> On 1/26/15 12:35 PM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
On Jan 20, 2015, at 10:50, Lowry, Roy K. <rkl at bodc.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Nan,
>
> I must admit a little discomfort watching the process of CF semantic modelling replacing a well-known term with something that nobody in the domain would recognise without significant education. I didn't comment because I as a semantic modeller I can see both sides. However, I think you're right and Wally Broecker's work is so well absorbed into biogeochemistry that we should respect his terminology.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
> ________________________________________
> From: Nan Galbraith [ngalbraith at whoi.edu]
> Sent: 20 January 2015 18:35
> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> Subject: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Request for new standard-name: apparent_oxygen_utilization
>
> 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
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20150211/673044f0/attachment-0001.html>
Received on Wed Feb 11 2015 - 12:21:40 GMT
