I also agree.
I'm not sure about Tom's suggestion, but hope someone who has actual
sediment trap data will weigh in on it:
> 2. For the two names considered ready to go (particulate matter and > particulate organic matter), adding the word "dry" would add > clarity.
And, I DO especially like Matthias' cake batter analogy though.
Thanks - Nan
On 3/10/16 4:49 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I totally agree with Matthias. I have never been fully comfortable with the existing carbon flux Standard Names, but I was a lone 'observational' voice in the debate when they were set up. They are:
>
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_calcite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_aragonite_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
>
>
> My preference for these would be
>
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_aragonite_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water (aragonite has to be particulate - it's a mineral)
> sinking_mole_flux_of_calcite_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water
>
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water (the usual observational parameter that is the sum of the model parameters sinking_mole_flux_of_aragonite_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water and
> sinking_mole_flux_of_calcite_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water)
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: CF-metadata on behalf of Matthias Lankhorst <mlankhorst at ucsd.edu>
> Sent: 09 March 2016 19:59
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
>
> Hi,
>
> we had an internal discussion within OceanSITES about these sediment
> trap data names, which resulted in one issue that still needs to be
> resolved.
>
>
> First off, the first two names are not affected, and we would like to
> see those published a.s.a.p. as suggested below:
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water
> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water
> We think these are ready for publication now.
>
>
> The concern with the others was voiced by Laurent Coppola and is about
> the wording "expressed_as". For the particular situation here, this
> whole thing about "A_expressed_as_B" seems like a poor choice, because
> we are making no attempt to express A. What is being reported is B, and
> B only, with no implication what A might be.
>
> In other words, if you want to tell somebody how much sugar is in a
> cake, what would you say:
> 1. "amount of sugar in cake"
> 2. "amount of batter expressed as sugar in cake"
> We prefer option 1. Option 2 is ambiguous in that it is not intuitively
> clear what "100 g" would mean:
> 2.a) 100 grams of pure sugar
> 2.b) 100 grams of batter, some of which is sugar
> 2.c) the total calories of the cake, if they all came from sugar, would
> be equivalent to 100 grams of pure sugar (but only some are actually
> sugar, while some portion is from other ingredients)
>
> Would it be acceptable to abandon this "expressed_as" wording here, and
> instead model the new names like the following ones (which already
> exist):
>
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_iron_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_phosphorus_in_sea_water
> sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_silicon_in_sea_water
>
>
> (For confusion, there are three other existing standard names with
> sinking mole fluxes, which do use the "expressed_as"; two of these make
> more sense than the third. Should we be making all of these consistent,
> i.e. change the existing ones? That is a separate issue though.)
>
>
> Regards, Matthias
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 09:22 +0000, alison.pamment at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>> Dear Stephane, Matthias, All,
>>
>> I know that these sediment trap names have been sitting around for an
>> awfully long time - my apologies it has taken this long for me to
>> review the original discussion. I think the only bone of contention
>> was, as you say, around the use of the word "total" and there was a
>> general opinion that the names would be useful with or without it. So,
>> belatedly, I would like to come down on the side of not including
>> "total" in the names. In CF, we have always taken the view that
>> something should be regarded as fully inclusive, i.e. total, unless
>> stated otherwise . As the person looking after the standard name table
>> my concern is always to make our list of names as internally consistent
>> as possible, hence my preference for sticking with the established CF
>> practice on this point. I have added a sentence to the definitions of
>> the "particulate_matter" names to emphasize that it includes both
>> organic and inorganic species.
>>
>> Regarding the nitrogen and carbon names, we should write
>> "particulate_[organic|inorganic]_matter_expressed_as_carbon|nitrogen"
>> rather than simply "particulate_[organic|inorganic]_carbon|nitrogen",
>> again for consistency with other names, otherwise they are fine.
>>
>> If you are happy with the following versions of the names and
>> definitions then they can be accepted for inclusion in the standard
>> name table.
>>
>> I am aware that the original proposal from Matthias contained names for
>> a number of other chemical species, but I will pick those up in a
>> separate posting.
>>
>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water (canonical units:
>> kg m-2 s-1) ' In accordance with common usage in geophysical
>> disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux density" in
>> physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of particulate matter
>> suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive downwards and is
>> calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding fluid. Sinking
>> mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after water has
>> evaporated. "Particulate matter" includes particles composed of both
>> organic and inorganic chemical species.'
>>
>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water (canonical
>> units: kg m-2 s-1) ' In accordance with common usage in geophysical
>> disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux density" in
>> physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of particulate matter
>> suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive downwards and is
>> calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding fluid. Sinking
>> mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after water has
>> evaporated.'
>>
>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
>> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) ' In accordance with common usage in
>> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux
>> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of
>> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive
>> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding
>> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after
>> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the
>> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A.
>> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated
>> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other
>> chemical constituents of A. "Particulate matter" includes particles
>> composed of both organic and inorganic chemical species.'
>>
>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
>> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in
>> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux
>> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of
>> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive
>> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding
>> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after
>> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the
>> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A.
>> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated
>> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other
>> chemical constituents of A.'
>>
>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water
>> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in
>> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux
>> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of
>> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive
>> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding
>> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after
>> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the
>> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A.
>> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated
>> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other
>> chemical constituents of A.'
>>
>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water
>> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in
>> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux
>> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of
>> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive
>> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding
>> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after
>> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the
>> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A.
>> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated
>> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other
>> chemical constituents of A. "Particulate matter" includes particles
>> composed of both organic and inorganic chemical species.'
>>
>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water
>> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in
>> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux
>> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of
>> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive
>> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding
>> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after
>> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the
>> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A.
>> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated
>> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other
>> chemical constituents of A.'
>>
>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_matter_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water
>> (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in
>> geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux
>> density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of
>> particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive
>> downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding
>> fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after
>> water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the
>> construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A.
>> It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated
>> solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other
>> chemical constituents of A.'
>>
>> Best wishes, Alison
>>
>> ------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CF-metadata On Behalf Of Stephane TAROT
>>> Sent: 27 November 2015 14:50
>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 On Behalf Of Jonathan Gregory
>>>>>>> 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 *
*******************************************************
Received on Tue Mar 15 2016 - 10:35:07 GMT
