Dear Jonathan,
Many thanks. That's a point worth considering, but although the oceanographic community use many different physical dimensions for dissolved oxygen concentrations (vol/vol, mass/vol, mol/vol, mol/mass) I am unaware of anybody deviating from the physical dimensions used by Wally Broeker for AOU when the quantity was defined, which is mol/vol (i.e. mol m-3). I therefore feel there is no need for an indication of dimensionality in the Standard Name. In the unlikely event that practices should change in the future we have aliases as a safety net.
Cheers, Roy.
________________________________________
From: Jonathan Gregory [j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk]
Sent: 12 February 2015 08:56
To: John Graybeal
Cc: CF Metadata List
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Request for new standard-name: apparent_oxygen_utilization
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
_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
Received on Thu Feb 12 2015 - 03:02:49 GMT
