Hi,
I'd like to put back this subject on top of the list.
The following 8 new parameters were almost approved in december 2013 :
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
(with a canonical unit : kg m-2 s-1)
There was only a remark from Roy who suggested to add "total" for
total_carbon (=organic+inorganic in its definition) and total_nitrogen in names 5 and 8
But he also said it shouldn't be a stopper to include/exclude it.
So can we agree on those new parameters, and add them to the list ?
Best regards
St?phane Tarot
Le 04/02/2015 17:54, Jonathan Gregory a ?crit :
> Dear Nan and Alison
>
> I think Alison's view on this would be helpful in particular.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu> -----
>
>> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:05:56 -0500
>> From: Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu, "mlankhorst at ucsd.edu >> Matthias Lankhorst"
>> <mlankhorst at ucsd.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:31.0)
>> Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
>>
>> 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 *
>> *******************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
Received on Fri Aug 14 2015 - 02:45:00 BST
