Hi Crissy,
These are different Standard Names to the ones that Matthias is after because you have mass fluxes rather than mole fluxes.
So, I would suggest:
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water
and
sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_carbon_in_sea_water (or sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_total_carbon_in_sea_water)
I seem to remember a past debate as to whether the 'total' should be included that decided to leave it out.
Also the principles of Units of Measure in CF, based on UDUNITS and uitimately SI do not allow semantics such as 'OC' in the UoM. So, the acceptable canonical units for both of these would be (kg m-2 s-1). Note that the canonical units don't include scale, whereas the units you store in the parameter attributes do include scale and so these would be mg m-2 d-1.
Finally, to help Alison could you clarify whether you were you citing these as examples as a part of the discussion of Matthias's proposal or proposing them as additional new Standard Names.
Cheers, Roy.
Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to enquiries at bodc.ac.uk. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.
________________________________________
From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu> on behalf of Christine Huffard <chuffard at mbari.org>
Sent: 15 March 2016 17:37
To: ngalbraith at whoi.edu; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
Hello all,
I use sediment trap data, and I also agree with Roy and Matthias. It would help avoid confusion if the exact units were also included, such as these examples:
sinking_particulate_organic_carbon_flux_in_sea_water (mg OC m-2 d-1)
sinking_particulate_total_carbon_flux_in_sea_water (mg TC m-2 d-1)
take care,
Crissy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nan Galbraith" <ngalbraith at whoi.edu>
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:35:07 AM
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data
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 *
*******************************************************
_______________________________________________
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 Tue Mar 15 2016 - 16:22:36 GMT
