Dear John
Thanks for your research. If I'm in a small minority or alone in preferring a
self-explanatory term then I'll accept the majority view. Do you find that this
quantity always has the same physical dimensions (canonical unit in CF terms)?
A possible cause of confusion would be if, for instance, the same term is used
to mean both kg m-3 and mol m-3. In that case it might help to indicate which
it is in the standard name.
Best wishes
Jonathan
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:21:40AM -0800, John Graybeal wrote:
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:21:40 -0800
> From: John Graybeal <jbgraybeal at mindspring.com>
> To: CF Metadata List <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name:
> apparent_oxygen_utilization
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
>
> 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
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
Received on Thu Feb 12 2015 - 01:56:10 GMT
