Dear Colleagues,
In december 2013, some standard names (see below) for sediment trap
data parameters were almost approved.
Last august, I suggested that we can maybe consider them as approved. I
had no response (so, nobody disagrees).
What is the next step in order to have them added to the official list
of standard names ?
Best regards
St?phane Tarot
Le 14/08/2015 10:45, Stephane TAROT a ?crit :
> 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 Nov 27 2015 - 07:49:42 GMT
