Dear Chris
The web page to which I gave a link writes down the rules for constructing the
standard names (of some years ago, but presumably it could be updated). This
would help with some new standard name proposals, which use existing patterns
and vocabulary, or existing patterns with new vocabulary that obviously fits.
The more difficult proposals, which involve most thinking, involve new concepts
and patterns.
Best wishes
Jonathan
----- Forwarded message from "Little, Chris" <chris.little at metoffice.gov.uk-----
Jonathan, and CF community,
If "Standard Names are constructed systematically and consistently" in the existing patterns, an ontology is just a rigorous way of writing down the rules.
I think the proposal of Roy has merit, because either you can or cannot write down those rules. Either outcome is of interest.
If the rules can be written down, it should be trivial to build a Web form that allows users to create only standard conforming names.
The other benefit of ontologies would be exposure of the CF metadata in a better way to web search engines, enabling better discovery of data across domains of interest. Modern search engines use ontologies and RDF technologies to give more accurate results than string matching.
Chris
PS Like Roy, I cannot take a lead, and I am not an active member of the CF community anyway.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Gregory [mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:18 PM
> To: Adam Leadbetter <Adam.Leadbetter at Marine.ie>
> Cc: Little, Chris <chris.little at metoffice.gov.uk>; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu;
> Lowry, Roy K. <rkl at bodc.ac.uk>; Hollis, Dan <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>;
> Daniel.Lee at eumetsat.int
> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CF Ontologies
>
> Dear all
>
> I'm not clear what's included under the heading of "ontologies". I'm in favour
> of considering ideas to bundle up CF metadata in order to translate
> commonly
> recognised concepts (like https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/24) or to
> refer to them together (like https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/94) and for
> making mappings between different vocabularies. Although the idea has
> been
> raised several times, I would argue against decomposing standard names into
> sub-attributes, for reasons which I described in
> http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~jonathan/CF_metadata/14.1/#direction
> Standard names are constructed systematically and consistently, as far as we
> can, but I think they're "holistic" once constructed. I would rather focus
> attention on making it easier for people to construct and propose new
> standard
> names that conform to existing patterns, than to try to decompose them.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 09:45:40AM +0000, Adam Leadbetter wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 09:45:40 +0000
> > From: Adam Leadbetter <Adam.Leadbetter at Marine.ie>
> > To: "Little, Chris" <chris.little at metoffice.gov.uk>,
> > "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > CC: "Gregory, Jonathan" <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>, "Lowry, Roy K."
> > <rkl at bodc.ac.uk>, "dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk"
> > <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>, "Daniel.Lee at eumetsat.in"
> > <Daniel.Lee at eumetsat.in>
> > Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] CF Ontologies
> >
> > Dear all (apologies if you get this twice - my posting to the list seemed to
> bounce)
> >
> > I'd be supportive of (and willing to contribute to) any development of a CF
> ontology.
> >
> > To add to Chris's use cases below, I think this kind of development could
> support:
> >
> >
> > * the work on Linked Data for NetCDF currently being undertaken by a
> group from CSIRO, the UK Met Office, NOAA (and occasionally me). Some
> more details are available at [1], [2]
> >
> >
> >
> > * the interest being shown by Google in producing "rich snippets"
> (think the detailed information you see if you search or a film/movie) for
> datasets. Breaking down some of the information held in standard names
> could help fill out the relevant parts of the Schema.org metadata (the
> particular "ontology" they use to generate these rich snippets) [3]. Note that
> the Erddap data server provided by NOAA (which can deliver netCDF and is
> aware of CF) is Schema.org enabled as of the latest (this week) release [4]
> >
> > I did some work a while back (my interest in this was sparked when I used
> to work with Roy) and came up with one possible starting point - diagram at
> [5]. I'm sharing it here as a strawman and note that it reuses the complex
> properties model ontology (with a few additions/tweaks).
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > [1] https://binary-array-ld.github.io/netcdf-ld/
> > [2] https://www.slideshare.net/jnyu/netcdfld-towards-linked-data-
> conventions-for-delivery-of-environmental-data-using-netcdf
> > [3] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/dataset
> > [4] https://coastwatch.pfeg.noaa.gov/erddap/download/changes.html
> > [5]
> https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1zW_crybh_DOQG0TQgkRd28Qfcf8Ul8
> xfp42EOasHyag/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > Dr. Adam Leadbetter
> > Team Leader for Data Management
> > Chartered Marine Scientist | Member of the Institute of Marine
> Engineering, Science & Technology
> >
> > Marine Institute, Rinville, Oranmore, County Galway, H91 R673, Ireland
> > Tel: (+)353 (0)91 387 502
> > Mob: (+)353 (0)876 285 388
> > Email: adam.leadbetter at marine.ie<mailto:adam.leadbetter at marine.ie>
> > ORCID: 0000-0003-4382-2285<http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4382-2285>
> > Web: http://data.marine.ie/
> >
> >
> >
> > From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On
> Behalf Of Little, Chris
> > Sent: Tuesday 30 January 2018 21:06
> > To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > Cc: Gregory, Jonathan
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>
> > Subject: [CF-metadata] CF Ontologies. Was: CF-metadata Digest, Vol 177,
> Issue 48
> >
> > Dear CF-Metadata mailing list, and Roy, Dan, Dan and Jonathan,
> >
> > Apologies for copying you all in individually, in case I am bounced from the
> mailing list as a fringe lurker.
> >
> > I certainly support the idea of CF putting its collective toes into the ontology
> water. For example, people have already discussed, and are implementing,
> the idea of using ontologies as more fundamental than UML for describing
> conceptual models. In such a case, the UML would be derived automatically
> from the ontology.
> >
> > I think you may be more successful if you identify a very tight, small, scope
> for a 'mini-ontology', where any reasoning engine will produce reasonable
> results. Trying to be 'completeist' may end up with a serious mess that is
> worse than useless.
> >
> > The W3C Spatial Data on the Web Interest
> Group<https://www.w3.org/2017/sdwig/> has committed to producing a
> Best Practices for Statistical Data on the Web (to follow on from Data on the
> Web Best Practices<https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/> and Spatial Data on the
> Web Best Practices<https://www.w3.org/TR/sdw-bp/>). Two Use
> cases<https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/stats-bp/draft-use-case-
> list.md> are:
> >
> > 1. A statistical metadata scheme (probably an ontology) to annotate
> quantities of interest. The scheme should encompass mean, median,
> variance, STD, etc., and may be useful for a CF Ontology. You are welcome to
> join in the work too. If your institution is not a member of W3C, individuals
> could be invited as experts.
> >
> > 2. A temporal metadata scheme (also probably an ontology) to annotate
> periods of interest used in deriving statistics of interest. This will probably
> utilise the existing W3C Time Ontology<https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/>
> published last year. Again, you are very welcome to join in the work and
> contribute your expertise too.
> >
> > HTH, Chris
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On
> Behalf
> > > Of cf-metadata-request at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata-
> request at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:26 PM
> > > To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > Subject: CF-metadata Digest, Vol 177, Issue 48
> > >
> > > Send CF-metadata mailing list submissions to
> > > cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > cf-metadata-request at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata-
> request at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > cf-metadata-owner at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata-
> owner at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > than "Re: Contents of CF-metadata digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > > 1. Re: CF Ontology (Lowry, Roy K.)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:26:12 +0000
> > > From: "Lowry, Roy K." <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>>
> > > To: "Hollis, Dan"
> <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>,
> 'Daniel Lee'
> > > <Daniel.Lee at eumetsat.int<mailto:Daniel.Lee at eumetsat.int>>, "cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>"
> > > <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > Cc: "Gregory, Jonathan"
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>
> > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] CF Ontology
> > > Message-ID:
> > >
> <DB6PR0601MB211713C980A913095F6F637699E40 at DB6PR0601MB21<mailto:
> DB6PR0601MB211713C980A913095F6F637699E40 at DB6PR0601MB2117.eurpr
> d06.prod.outlook.com>
> > > 17.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
> > >
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> > >
> > > Dear Dan,
> > >
> > >
> > > My personal position is that I am heading for full retirement in May and
> so
> > > don't want to get involved in the leadership of such a venture. However,
> in
> > > retirement I could still offer support to any proposals that take off.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ontologies in my experience take on the form of an XML file with a
> structure
> > > that conforms to several layers of standards. The simple ontologies I've
> built
> > > are based on the standards RDF (Resource Description Framework) and
> SKOS
> > > (Simple Knowledge Organisation System). To see a SKOS ontology of the
> CF
> > > Standard Names have a look at:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P07/
> > >
> > >
> > > This shows information on Standard Names such as labels and definitions,
> > > but also relationships to canonical units, replacements for aliased
> Standard
> > > Names and a few have links to external vocabularies such as GCMD and
> > > SeaDataNet. Not what you see looks like XHTML - it isn't. It's rendered
> that
> > > way be a context-sensitive style sheet. Use 'view source' to see what the
> > > RDF looks like.
> > >
> > >
> > > There's a similar resource maintained by John Graybeal at
> > > http://mmisw.org/ont/cf/parameter
> > >
> > >
> > > The NVS SKOS resource is very basic, using only four predicates
> > > (synonymous, broader, narrower and related). The first stage to
> enrichening
> > > would be to expand the semantic richness of the predicates - say change
> > > 'related' to 'hasCanonicalUnit'. Next, the knowledge delivered could be
> > > extended. For example each name could be mapped to its semantic
> > > elements as proposed by Jonathan Gregory.
> > >
> > >
> > > Talking hypothetically the next step would be to move from basic SKOS to
> a
> > > more complex ontology standard such as OWL which can handle rules -
> such
> > > as eastward_water_vapor_flux isAccompaniedBy
> > > northward_water_vapor_flux as well relationships. Other such rules
> were
> > > being drafted in plaintext by Martin Juckes as part of CMIP6 QC. I have no
> > > personal experience of OWL - I depend on other BODC colleagues past
> and
> > > present here - so am starting to get out of my depth and its best to shut
> up!
> > >
> > >
> > > Any ontology file would have a URL and could be accessed by a
> conformity
> > > checker that incorporated a reasoning engine.
> > >
> > >
> > > Much of your e-mail is concerned with detail. For any semantics project
> to
> > > stand a chance the first step has to be a strategic plan of the resource,
> > > followed by an implementation plan (e.g. technologies to use - OWL isn't
> the
> > > only tool), building of an empty schema (class definitions etc) and then
> > > population. The work involved in this isn't trivial.
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope the above ramblings have been able to clarify my vision of the
> bigger
> > > picture of a CF ontology.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>. Please also use
> this e-mail if your requirement is
> > > urgent.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Hollis, Dan
> <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>
> > > Sent: 30 January 2018 18:22
> > > To: 'Daniel Lee'; Lowry, Roy K.; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > Cc: Gregory, Jonathan
> > > Subject: RE: CF Ontology
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Roy / Daniel,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I?m not really familiar with ontologies so I?ve had to do a little
> background
> > > reading. It would certainly be interesting to see how the concepts could
> be
> > > applied to CF standard names.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Would either of you care to give a brief top-level view of what you think a
> CF
> > > ontology might look like?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Would the basic idea be to break down the standard names into classes,
> > > attributes, relations etc? For example, the following existing standard
> names
> > > have a common pattern:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > number_of_days_with_air_temperature_below_threshold
> > >
> > > spell_length_of_days_with_air_temperature_below_threshold
> > >
> > >
> spell_length_of_days_with_lwe_thickness_of_precipitation_amount_below
> > > _threshold
> > >
> > > number_of_days_with_air_temperature_above_threshold
> > >
> > >
> number_of_days_with_lwe_thickness_of_precipitation_amount_above_thr
> > > eshold
> > >
> > > number_of_days_with_wind_speed_above_threshold
> > >
> > > spell_length_of_days_with_air_temperature_above_threshold
> > >
> > >
> spell_length_of_days_with_lwe_thickness_of_precipitation_amount_above
> > > _threshold
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess you could break these down into:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Classes:
> > >
> > > [?air_temperature?, ?lwe_thickness_of_precipitation_amount?,
> > > ?wind_speed?]
> > >
> > > [?threshold?]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Relations:
> > >
> > > [?above?, ?below?]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ???
> > >
> > > [?number_of_days_with?, ?spell_length_of_days_with?]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Attributes:
> > >
> > > [the value of the threshold]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Two key questions occur to me (I?m sure there are many others?)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Does an ontology completely determine what is permissible? E.g. given
> the
> > > example above, would it then be okay to use
> > > number_of_days_with_wind_speed_below_threshold (even though
> this
> > > standard name doesn?t currently exist) if the ontology permits this
> > > combination of classes and relations?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Secondly, is an ontological approach compatible with the way CF currently
> > > works? For example, I assume there is software out there that requires
> that
> > > a complete list of all standard names exists. Presumably that table could
> be
> > > constructed automatically from the ontology. New entries might arise
> > > (depending on the answer to my first question) but would anything
> actually
> > > break? I assume many of the current requests for new standard names
> > > would then become requests for additions to classes (e.g. adding
> > > ?sunshine_duration? to the list of variables) or for new ways of relating
> > > things (e.g. by adding things like ?range? and ?between?).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hope you can enlighten me!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Daniel Lee [mailto:Daniel.Lee at eumetsat.int]
> > > Sent: 24 January 2018 17:11
> > > To: Lowry, Roy K. <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>>; Hollis, Dan
> > > <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>;
> cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > Cc: Gregory, Jonathan
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>
> > > Subject: RE: CF Ontology
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Roy, Dan,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wholeheartedly agree with your point that using an ontological approach
> for
> > > new standard names in CF could be of benefit. Coming from the satellite
> > > remote sensing community, there's been a lot of discussion amongst
> satellite
> > > operators on whether it's worth the hassle of getting standard names
> > > recognised by CF. Most of the time the answer is, for many reasons, no,
> > > leading to noncompliance - and what's worse, heterogeneous
> > > noncompliance! Like you say, for a human it's not a big deal, but it does
> bind
> > > a lot of human resources in order to make use of the data.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is one of the reasons that there is still a preference in many
> numerical
> > > weather prediction centres to use WMO formats such as GRIB and BUFR.
> > > Interrelating data generated in these formats binds just as much human
> > > resources again.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So there's been discussions on how to govern and interrelate data from
> our
> > > side, but again, we have the same resource issue as the CF governing
> bodies.
> > > Additionally, we don't want to find the optimal Path to the Future for us
> and
> > > then present CF with a finished solution which may not be agreeable to
> other
> > > users.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd be open to further collaboration in this area in order to make it easier
> to
> > > standardize metadata encodings for small communities for whom data
> > > integrity is crucial (as is the case for us and seems to be the case here).
> This
> > > would of course be separate from the current request - I don't want to
> hold
> > > up Heiko either.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Lowry, Roy K.
> > > Sent: 24 January 2018 17:55
> > > To: Hollis, Dan
> > >
> <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:d
> an.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk%3cmailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>>; cf-
> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > Cc: Gregory, Jonathan
> > >
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.
> gregory at reading.ac.uk%3cmailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>>
> > > Subject: [CF-metadata] CF Ontology
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks Dan,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > i've changed the subject to keep any further discussion clear of Heiko's
> > > proposal.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My mapping work has focused on integration of CF data into
> aggregations of
> > > SeaDataNet data tagged with parameter labels from the BODC parameter
> > > dictionary. This is not a simple mapping for reasons other than taking cell
> > > methods into account. For example units of measure sometimes need to
> be
> > > considered because the BODC dictionary isn't as dimensionally pure as
> the
> > > Standard Names. It has also only been done on a 'needs must' basis and
> so
> > > only covers a small proportion of the dictionaries.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Consequently, I haven't done much along the lines you suggest. I know
> > > others have done modelling work on CF, but I don't think that has gone as
> far
> > > as an ontology incorporating semantics (e.g. stating rules applicable to
> > > specific Standard Names). It would be a useful resource should anybody
> care
> > > to take the work on. If anyone has done anything in this area then please
> > > publicise on this list.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In SeaDataNet our objective is to make NetCDF data CF-compliant.
> However,
> > > like you we also include our own semantics as additional (in our case
> > > namespace-labelled) parameter attributes. We also embed the
> semantics as
> > > a URI rather than plaintext.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bod
> c.ac.uk%3cmailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>>. Please also use this e-
> > > mail if your requirement is urgent.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Hollis, Dan
> > >
> <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:d
> an.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk%3cmailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>>
> > > Sent: 24 January 2018 10:47
> > > To: Lowry, Roy K.; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > Cc: 'Heiko Klein'; Gregory, Jonathan
> > > Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> > > radioactive particles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Roy,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Many thanks for some further insight into the challenges of CF!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I certainly have no wish for Heiko?s request to stall. From recent postings
> it
> > > sounds like option 3 will be the pragmatic way forward. Although option 2
> > > (normalising the names into a controlled vocab) feels to me like it would
> be a
> > > more ?elegant? solution, I can appreciate from your other comments that
> > > this is not as straightforward as perhaps I imagined.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Certainly, issues such as automated data aggregation and mappings
> between
> > > controlled vocabularies are not something I?ve needed to consider in my
> > > own work. Just out of curiosity, do you make use of the standard name
> > > descriptions to determine what other coordinates/attributes to look for
> (e.g.
> > > ?It must have a coordinate variable or scalar coordinate variable with a
> > > standard name of X??). I appreciate the descriptions are not controlled in
> the
> > > same way as the names themselves. However many of them do seem to
> > > follow a certain pattern which, if tightened up a bit, could perhaps be
> used by
> > > automated systems.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I?ve had a quick look through the ?Common concepts? ticket (#24 ?
> currently
> > > dormant!). It?s certainly an interesting topic and something that aligns
> closely
> > > with our own approach. We add an additional attribute (?short_name?)
> to
> > > our datasets to try and capture particular combinations of
> standard_name,
> > > cell_methods and scalar coordinate variable values (e.g.
> ?daily_maxtemp?,
> > > ?monthly_meantemp?, ?monthly_raindays1mm? etc). I know of other
> met
> > > services doing similar things. However, I can see from a quick glance
> through
> > > the comments that there has already been much discussion and that
> > > reaching consensus and ironing out all the different use cases is not going
> to
> > > be easy! If the topic ever gets off the ground again then let me know ?
> I?d be
> > > happy to contribute where I can.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: 19 January 2018 14:27
> > > To: Hollis, Dan
> > >
> <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:d
> an.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk%3cmailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>>; cf-
> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > Cc: 'Heiko Klein'
> <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met
> .no%3cmailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>>;
> > > Gregory, Jonathan
> > >
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.
> gregory at reading.ac.uk%3cmailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>>
> > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> > > radioactive particles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Dan,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think you misunderstood my first point. I was saying that provided we
> could
> > > recruit a couple of domain experts willing to give a little time then
> creation
> > > and management of the controlled vocabulary could realistically be done.
> I
> > > totally agree that the governance is no more difficult for isotope names
> > > embedded in Standard Names.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Note that I'm not in the least worried about a researcher receiving CF
> data
> > > files and scanning through NCDUMP output to understand the data.
> Virtually
> > > any encoding will satisfy that use case.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My real concern is the encoding of the additional information in CF in a
> way in
> > > which it can be discovered and understood by the kind of software
> agents
> > > being developed for automated data aggregation. Much of my work over
> the
> > > past 15 years or so has been developing the semantic infrastructure, in
> > > particular developing mappings between controlled vocabularies
> describing
> > > what has been measured (termed 'parameters' by oceanographic data
> > > managers). How do I present the information 'If the Standard Name is
> such
> > > and such then search for a bit of text in a co-ordinate variable and
> substitute
> > > it for a given bit of text in the Standard Name' to a reasoning engine? The
> > > answer is to build an ontology describing Standard Names and all their
> little
> > > quirks and establish maintenance infrastructure for it so it can keep up to
> > > date with future Standard Names.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This has been a known issue in CF for a long time. Over 10 years ago Bryan
> > > Lawrence, Alison Pamment and myself visited Heiko and her colleagues in
> > > Hamburg to try and find a way to automatically manage the CF encoding
> for
> > > '2m air temperature'. A Trac ticket was established - I forget the number
> but
> > > the name was 'Common Concepts'. It is either still open or has been put
> > > down. I've made a couple of attempts to make it happen, but every time
> I've
> > > lined up the necessary resources (around six staff months) staff turnover
> has
> > > intervened. I would love to see it addressed, but I'm not optimistic.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Heiko has made the Standard Name request and has expressed a strong
> > > preference for embedding the isotope labels in the Standard Names,
> > > presumably because if they are not then her group will either have to
> make
> > > changes to some of their software or lose the ability to use some
> standard
> > > tool or other. My supporting her is down to a judgement call of the costs
> of a
> > > relatively limited bloating the Standard Name list against causing
> disruption to
> > > her work.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What really concerns me is where we go from here. I can see three
> options.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1) Heiko's Standard Name request stalls completely as many have before
> it.
> > >
> > > 2) Heiko agrees a solution based on normalising the names into a
> controlled
> > > vocabulary. If she does then I will volunteer the resource to set up the
> > > necessary infrastructure.
> > >
> > > 3) We add the Standard Names Heiko is requesting.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I sincerely hope that we don't end up with option (1).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bod
> c.ac.uk%3cmailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>>. Please also use this e-
> > > mail if your requirement is urgent.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Hollis, Dan
> > >
> <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:d
> an.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk%3cmailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>>
> > > Sent: 19 January 2018 13:03
> > > To: Lowry, Roy K.; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > Cc: 'Heiko Klein'; Gregory, Jonathan
> > > Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> > > radioactive particles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Roy,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply. (Heiko ? thanks also for your separate response
> > > pointing me to the start of this discussion.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I should start by saying that I am not a user of radiation data (so have no
> > > expertise, or requirements, in this area) plus I have no experience of
> what it
> > > involves to make a significant change to CF (so forgive me if I assume
> > > something is easy when it isn?t!).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nevertheless I?d like to play devil?s advocate regarding a couple of the
> > > points you raise.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Firstly, I don?t see why creating a separate controlled vocabulary for
> isotopes
> > > would be any more difficult than incorporating them in the standard
> names.
> > > Either way, someone has to make a decision about whether to accept a
> > > particular entry. As far as I can tell, all of the CF controlled vocabularies
> > > (standard name, area type and standardized region names) are all
> > > maintained on an ?as needed? basis. I?ve seen several instances where a
> > > particular variant of a standard name has been rejected because there
> was
> > > no explicit user requirement (even though defining it would in some
> sense
> > > ?complete the set?) ? apologies, I don?t have a specific example to give.
> So,
> > > given that there is no need to create a complete list of all possible
> isotopes
> > > right from the outset, why not create a table that includes only those
> > > proposed by Heiko? You?re going to end up accepting all of the names
> > > anyway if you go down the standard name route.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Secondly, I agree that ensuring CF datasets are discoverable is important.
> > > However, I can think of several situations that already exist where
> scraping
> > > the standard name is insufficient to understand the data. My area of
> interest
> > > is in situ climate data. I generate a variety of datasets that all have the
> > > standard name ?air_temperature?. However, if a user wants to know if
> they
> > > are looking at the daily maximum, or the daily minimum, or the mean
> daily
> > > max (or min) over a month (or season or year), or some other variant,
> then
> > > they need to inspect and interpret the cell methods and bounds as well.
> In a
> > > similar way, a count of days of precipitation above a threshold will have
> the
> > > standard name
> > >
> ?number_of_days_with_lwe_thickness_of_precipitation_amount_above_t
> > > hreshold?, but the user has to check the dataset for a scalar coord
> variable
> > > called ?precipitation_amount? to find out if the data refer to days with
> precip
> > > > 1mm, or 10mm, or 20mm etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In summary, I agree it?s nice to create fully descriptive standard names
> > > where possible, but I?d still question the case for adding thousands (or
> tens
> > > of thousands) of standard names in preference to adding a handful of
> new
> > > names and creating a new controlled vocabulary table instead.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Lowry, Roy K. [mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: 18 January 2018 19:33
> > > To: Hollis, Dan
> > >
> <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:d
> an.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk%3cmailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>>;
> > > Gregory, Jonathan
> > >
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.
> gregory at reading.ac.uk%3cmailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>>; cf-
> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> > > radioactive particles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Dan,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This has already been debated a few weeks back - hence Jonathan's 'are
> you
> > > sure' response following an earlier debate. Making such a strategy work
> > > requires a significant amount of work. First, we need to establish an
> > > authoritative isotope name controlled vocabulary with suitable
> governance.
> > > This is probably within reach based on what we're doing with git-hub for
> > > vocabulary governance provided we could recruit a critical mass of
> specialist
> > > expertise. We also have the technology to serve such a vocabulary in a
> way
> > > that is machine-accessible and compatible with the Semantic Web (RDF).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The other major issue is how to make data for a given isotope or group of
> > > isotopes discoverable. Typically, discovery of CF datasets is based on
> scraping
> > > the Standard Names. Any such scraping would have to include the yet to
> be
> > > discussed, let alone agreed, Standard Name isotope-name extension,
> which
> > > would also need to be incorporated into client software for functionality
> such
> > > as axis labelling in a plot of the data.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Had we addressed all this when Trac 99 was first raised then I'd have gone
> for
> > > normalising out isotope names. However, we didn't - one of the
> drawbacks
> > > of the voluntary best efforts on which CF is based - and the problem has
> > > been hanging for several years. I didn't want to put such an open-ended
> > > block in the path of Heiko's proposal, which she no doubt needs for
> current
> > > work.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bod
> c.ac.uk%3cmailto: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<mailto:cf-
> <mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata-
> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata-
> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>>> on behalf of Hollis, Dan
> > >
> <dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:d
> an.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk%3cmailto:dan.hollis at metoffice.gov.uk>>>
> > > Sent: 18 January 2018 17:46
> > > To: Gregory, Jonathan; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> > > radioactive particles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Jonathan / Heiko,
> > >
> > > Could you set up a new table, similar to the area type table, that would
> list all
> > > permissible isotopes? You could then define a much smaller number of
> new
> > > standard names with generic descriptions. For a specific dataset the
> isotope
> > > of interest could then be defined via a scalar coordinate variable.
> > >
> > > Apologies if this has already been suggested.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Jonathan Gregory
> > > Sent: 18 January 2018 17:24
> > > To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and
> > > radioactive particles
> > >
> > > Dear Heiko
> > >
> > > I agree with the construction of these standard names. I see that you are
> > > proposing ~1000 new standard names. The table currently contains
> ~3000, so
> > > this is not overwhelming, but it is a substantial increment, so I'm just
> > > asking again to confirm: Are we certain that we prefer to do it this way,
> > > with the isotopes in the standard names (like chemical species)?
> > >
> > > What does mPo mean, by the way (compared with just Po)?
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > ----- Forwarded message from Heiko Klein
> > >
> <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met
> .no%3cmailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>> -----
> > >
> > > > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:10:53 +0100
> > > > From: Heiko Klein
> <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met
> .no%3cmailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>>
> > > > To: "Lowry, Roy K."
> <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk%3cmailto:rk
> l at bodc.ac.uk>>>, Jonathan
> > > Gregory
> > > >
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.
> gregory at reading.ac.uk%3cmailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>>, "cf-
> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3e>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>"
> > > > <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>>
> > > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash
> and
> > > > radioactive particles
> > > > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
> > > > Thunderbird/52.5.0
> > > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > I have the feeling that we all agree now on the usage of isotopes as
> > > > symbols. With this post I try to summarize the proposed standard-
> names:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ash:
> > > >
> > > > mass_concentration_of_volcanic_ash_in_air
> > > > canonical units: g/m^3
> > > > description: Mass concentration means mass per unit volume and is
> > > > used in the construction mass_concentration_of_X_in_Y, where X is a
> > > > material constituent of Y. "Volcanic_ash" means the fine-grained
> > > > products of explosive volcanic eruptions, such as minerals or
> > > > crystals, older fragmented rock (e.g. andesite), and glass. Particles
> > > > within a volcanic ash cloud have diameters less than 2 mm.
> > > > "Volcanic_ash" does not include non-volcanic dust.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Radioactivity (without naming the isotopes, general case):
> > > >
> > > > radioactivity_concentration_in_air
> > > > Bq/m3
> > > > Radioactivity concentration means activity per unit volume
> > > > where activity denotes the number of decays of the material per
> second.
> > > >
> > > > surface_radioactivity_content
> > > > Bq/m2
> > > > "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere. "Content"
> > > > indicates a quantity per unit area. Radioactivity of X means the number
> > > > of radioactive decays per second.
> > > >
> > > > integral_wrt_time_of_radioactivity_concentration_in_air
> > > > Bq*s/m3
> > > > The phrase "integral_wrt_X_of_Y" means int Y dX. The
> > > > data variable should have an axis for X specifying the limits of the
> > > > integral as bounds. "wrt" means with respect to. Radioactivity
> > > > concentration means activity per unit volume where activity denotes
> the
> > > > number of decays per second.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When naming the isotope, the names are:
> > > > radioactivity_concentration_of_X_in_air
> > > > surface_radioactivity_content_of_X
> > > > integral_wrt_time_of_radioactivity_concentration_of_X_in_air
> > > > with X denoting the isotope as 210mPo. A list of proposed standard-
> names
> > > > and descriptions (including full element-names) of these is attached.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this summary makes this proposal easier to implement in the
> > > > standard-name table.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Heiko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2018-01-05 10:30, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> > > > > Dear Heiko,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That syntax works for me and makes the case for isotopes as symbols.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bod
> c.ac.uk%3cmailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>>. Please also use
> > > this e-mail if your requirement
> > > > > is urgent.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > *From:* Heiko Klein
> > >
> <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met
> .no%3cmailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>>
> > > > > *Sent:* 05 January 2018 08:04
> > > > > *To:* Lowry, Roy K.; Jonathan Gregory; cf-<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > > > *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic
> ash
> > > and
> > > > > radioactive particles
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Jonathan and Roy,
> > > > >
> > > > > while this is not part of the current proposal, we should think of
> > > > > radionuclides in special chemical bindings. One of the most important
> > > > > one is that of iodine and there we could have:
> > > > >
> > > > > 133I_as_methyl_iodide
> > > > > 132I_as_methyl_iodide
> > > > >
> > > > > as well as
> > > > >
> > > > > 133I_as_hydrogen_iodide
> > > > > 132I_as_hydrogen_iodide
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > By using IUPAC symbols for isotopes and chemical names for chemical
> > > > > elements and compounds, we can have a nice and readable
> distinction
> > > > > between these two.
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically, I think we all agree that mixed case IUPAC symbols are the
> > > > > best candidate. I will start preparing a list with all proposed names.
> > > > >
> > > > > Heiko
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2018-01-04 17:31, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> > > > >> Dear Jonathan,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> My case for the hyphen is that to me it's a more natural candidate as
> a
> > > > >> search target. However, if we accept mixed case IUPAC symbols for
> > > > >> isotopes then this becomes a non-issue. In my view it would be
> > > extremely
> > > > >> unwise to allow symbols other than for isotopes as we already have
> > > > >> chemical names in the 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<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bod
> c.ac.uk%3cmailto: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<mailto:cf-<mailto:cf-metadata-
> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata-
> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>>> on behalf of
> > > > >> Jonathan Gregory
> > >
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.
> gregory at reading.ac.uk%3cmailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>>
> > > > >> *Sent:* 04 January 2018 16:12
> > > > >> *To:* cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > > >> *Subject:* [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash
> and
> > > > >> radioactive particles
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dear Heiko and Roy
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I agree with both of you that 210Po would be best i.e. requiring
> > > > >> case-sensitive
> > > > >> symbols for elements. The reason that standard names are (at
> present)
> > > > >> all lower
> > > > >> case is that case-sensitivity would simply be an opportunity for
> people
> > > > >> to make
> > > > >> mistakes, while not making them any clearer. I would expect that all
> > > > >> scientists
> > > > >> are aware that the symbols for chemical elements are case-sensitive
> so
> > > > >> getting
> > > > >> them right will be OK, if we draw attention specifically to this
> exception.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Unlike you, if mixed case isn't acceptable to others, I'd prefer
> > > > >> polonium210,
> > > > >> because I don't think including _ or - would make it easier to
> > > understand.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Another issue, though: we already have element *names* in many
> > > standard
> > > > >> names.
> > > > >> I presume we are not proposing to replace these with chemical
> element
> > > > >> symbols.
> > > > >> That is, we will not start writing Po for polonium in general. Is this
> new
> > > > >> orthography just for the case when you want to specify a particular
> > > isotope?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm glad that "radioactivity" is acceptable to experts. I hope it won't
> be
> > > > >> confusing. I do think that people from other disciplines will be
> alerted by
> > > > >> that word more effectively.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best wishes
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Jonathan
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ----- Forwarded message from Heiko Klein
> > >
> <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met
> .no%3cmailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>> -----
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:07:18 +0100
> > > > >>> From: Heiko Klein
> > >
> <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met
> .no%3cmailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>>
> > > > >>> To: "Lowry, Roy K."
> <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk%3cmailto:rk
> l at bodc.ac.uk>>>,
> > > Jonathan Gregory
> > > > >>>
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.
> gregory at reading.ac.uk%3cmailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>>,
> > > "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu><mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3e>"
> > > > >>> <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>>
> > > > >>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic
> ash
> > > and
> > > > >>> radioactive particles
> > > > >>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0)
> Gecko/20100101
> > > > >>> Thunderbird/52.5.0
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Dear Roy,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I agree very much with the nomenclature used in the BODC
> dictionary.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I would rule out a few of your options: When thinking of
> metastates,
> > > > >>> some cases don't work, f.e. 180mta and 180mtantalum.
> > > > >>> As you also mentioned, the number before the full-name (210-
> > > polonium) in
> > > > >>> never used, either number before abbreviation (210Po) or number
> > > after
> > > > >>> full-name (polonium-210). Thus the options are slightly less, but
> the
> > > > >>> preference remains the same:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 210Po (requires mixed case)
> > > > >>> polonium-210 (requires hyphens)
> > > > >>> polonium_210
> > > > >>> polonium210
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Best regards,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Heiko
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 2018-01-04 10:35, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> > > > >>> > Dear Heiko,
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > For reference, the presentation syntax we use in the BODC
> > > parameter
> > > > >>> > dictionary is of the form:
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Activity of polonium-210 {210Po CAS 13981-52-7} per unit dry
> weight
> > > of
> > > > >>> > suspended particulate material by filtration and gamma
> spectroscopy
> > > > >>> > (high-purity Ge detector)
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > We use 'activity' as the technical term from the radio-chemistry
> > > > >>> > community for decays per unit time, but I could live with
> > > > >>> > 'radioactivity', even though its semantics to specialists are much
> > > broader.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > We have a built-in synonym exposure and so are able to use two
> > > > >>> > representations of the isotope name. We went for polonium-210
> > > rather
> > > > >>> > than 210-polonium due to common English language usage (try
> > > Googling
> > > > >>> > 210-polonium: the top hits come back as polonium-210). The
> syntax
> > > 210Po
> > > > >>> > is the only way to stay sane when writing formulae for
> compounds
> > > > >>> > containing multiple isotopes. As you say, the ability to use
> > > > >>> > superscripts would be very helpful, but that isn't going to happen
> in
> > > > >>> > Standard Names!
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > My vote for isotope labelling syntax depends upon what
> established
> > > > >>> > conventions (if any) the CF community are prepared to break -
> mixed
> > > case
> > > > >>> > or hyphens. The alternatives in my order or preference are:
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > 210Po (requires mixed case)
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > 210po
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > polonium-210 (requires hyphens)
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > 210-polonium (requires hyphens)
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > polonium_210
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > 210_polonium
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > polonium210
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > 210polonium
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > So our preferences are the same.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > 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<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bod
> c.ac.uk%3cmailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>>. Please also
> > > use this e-mail if your requirement
> > > > >>> > is urgent.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>> > *From:* CF-metadata <cf-metadata-<mailto:cf-metadata-
> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > bounces at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata-
> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:bounces at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>>> on
> > > behalf of
> > > > >>> > Heiko Klein
> <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met
> .no%3cmailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>>
> > > > >>> > *Sent:* 04 January 2018 08:49
> > > > >>> > *To:* Jonathan Gregory; cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > > >>> > *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for
> volcanic
> > > ash and
> > > > >>> > radioactive particles
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Dear Jonathan and Roy,
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > after some internal discussions, we agree to the change of the
> name
> > > from
> > > > >>> > activity_* to radioactivity_* to make the name more universal.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Concerning the names of the radionuclides, we will need to
> include
> > > the
> > > > >>> > mass-number, since there is no other distinction. I suggest using
> > > > >>> > mass-number and the IUPAC element abbreviation, e.g. 3H.
> > > Typically, the
> > > > >>> > 3 should be a superscript but that won't be possible here.
> > > Metastates
> > > > >>> > are then named like 180mTa. This requires upper-case letters.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > If CF-standard_names don't like abbreviations, an alternative
> would
> > > be
> > > > >>> > to use the hyphen notation, i.e. hydrogen-3 and tantalum-180m
> (see
> > > > >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope) - but I have never seen
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > >
> > > > > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > en.wikipedia.org
> > > > > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-
> 13
> > > > > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > >
> > > > > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > en.wikipedia.org
> > > > > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-
> 13
> > > > > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > >
> > > > > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > en.wikipedia.org
> > > > > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-
> 13
> > > > > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> en.wikipedia.org
> > > > >> Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > >> number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example
> carbon-13
> > > > >> with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > >
> > > > > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > en.wikipedia.org
> > > > > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-
> 13
> > > > > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > >
> > > > > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > en.wikipedia.org
> > > > > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-
> 13
> > > > > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > >
> > > > > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > en.wikipedia.org
> > > > > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-
> 13
> > > > > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> en.wikipedia.org
> > > > >> Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > >> number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example
> carbon-13
> > > > >> with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > >
> > > > > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > en.wikipedia.org
> > > > > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-
> 13
> > > > > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > >
> > > > > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > en.wikipedia.org
> > > > > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-
> 13
> > > > > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > >
> > > > > Isotope - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope>
> > > > > en.wikipedia.org
> > > > > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example carbon-
> 13
> > > > > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> en.wikipedia.org
> > > > >> Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a specific
> > > > >> number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example
> carbon-13
> > > > >> with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > en.wikipedia.org
> > > > >>> > Isotope vs. nuclide. A nuclide is a species of an atom with a
> specific
> > > > >>> > number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, for example
> carbon-
> > > 13
> > > > >>> > with 6 protons and 7 neutrons.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > radionuclides been written out except on wikipedia, and the CF-
> > > guideline
> > > > >>> > document forbids dash '-' as far as I can see. So I prefer the
> > > abbreviation.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Best regards,
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Heiko
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > On 2018-01-03 18:22, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> > > > >>> >> Dear Heiko and Roy
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> I am happy to agree with you that we should retain the
> radioactive
> > > species in
> > > > >>> >> the standard names, given (a) the number is not huge and as
> Roy
> > > said they would
> > > > >>> >> be added only as needed, (b) the distinction between these
> > > species and other
> > > > >>> >> chemical species is blurred, (c) there is no satisfactory external
> > > authority
> > > > >>> >> we could rely upon. We should be systematic about how we
> write
> > > the names of
> > > > >>> >> these species, as far as possible. For chemical species, we have
> not
> > > used
> > > > >>> >> numerals, and they are in lower case, as all standard names are
> (so
> > > far). I'm
> > > > >>> >> not sure those conventions can work for the names of nuclides
> > > though.
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> Best wishes
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> Jonathan
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> ----- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K."
> > >
> <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk%3cmailto:rk
> l at bodc.ac.uk>>> -----
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >>> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 13:52:01 +0000
> > > > >>> >>> From: "Lowry, Roy K."
> <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk%3cmailto:rk
> l at bodc.ac.uk>>>
> > > > >>> >>> To: Heiko Klein
> > >
> <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met
> .no%3cmailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>>, Jonathan Gregory
> > > > >>> >>>
> > >
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.
> gregory at reading.ac.uk%3cmailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>>, "cf-
> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3e>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>"
> > > > >>> >>> <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>, SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER Barbara
> > > > >>> >>> <Barbara.SCHERLLIN-<mailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-
> PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at%3cmailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at>
> > > PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at<mailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-
> PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at>>
> > > > >>> >>> Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for
> volcanic
> > > ash and
> > > > >>> >>> radioactive particles
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> Hi Heiko,
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> Check with Alison to see if you need to do anything to prevent
> the
> > > volcanic ash proposal becoming blocked.
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> There are more possible isotopes than I intuitively expected,
> but
> > > as CF philosophy is only to generate Standard Names on an 'as needed'
> basis
> > > the numbers should be manageable. Having the possibility of stable and
> > > radioactive compounds - say H2O (water) and 3H2O (tritiated water) -
> makes
> > > the clean separation of 'isotopes' and
> > > > >>> > 'chemicals' impossible and could get very messy with say 'water'
> > > > >>> > included in the Standard Name and 'tritiated water' normalised
> out
> > > into
> > > > >>> > an isotope controlled vocabulary.
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> Consequently, I share your preference for managing isotopes
> as
> > > chemicals in Standard names.
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> Cheers, Roy.
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>> >>> From: Heiko Klein [mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no]
> > > > >>> >>> Sent: 03 January 2018 13:13
> > > > >>> >>> To: Lowry, Roy K.
> <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk%3cmailto:rk
> l at bodc.ac.uk>>>;
> > > Jonathan Gregory
> > >
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.
> gregory at reading.ac.uk%3cmailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>>; cf-
> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>;
> SCHERLLIN-
> > > PIRSCHER Barbara <Barbara.SCHERLLIN-<mailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-
> PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at%3cmailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at>
> > > PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at<mailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-
> PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at>>
> > > > >>> >>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for
> volcanic
> > > ash and radioactive particles
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> Dear Roy and Jonathan,
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> should I split the volcanic ash and radioactive partcles
> proposal? It
> > > seems like ash is easily accepted, while radioactivity needs some
> discussions.
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> I will here with our experts if radioactivity can replace activity,
> or if
> > > this is ambiguous in the nuclear community.
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> Concerning the isotopes, my current list has close to 400
> elements.
> > > Most of them are pure radionuclides / isotopes, but some of them are
> > > radioactive meta-states (with different half-life), and others are chemical
> > > compounds of radioactive isotopes, which have very different transport
> > > properties and/or effects (e.g. iodine as
> > > > >>> > I2, ICH3, ICs)
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> The IAEA International Radiological Information Exchange
> (IRIX)
> > > format
> > >
> http://bip.paa.gov.pl/download/105/23784/Zalacznik6IRIXFormatv10Referen
> <http://bip.paa.gov.pl/download/105/23784/Zalacznik6IRIXFormatv10Refere
> nceDescription.pdf>
> > > ceDescription.pdf
> > > > >>> >>> allows either nuclides directly or nuclide combinations, but
> even
> > > this expert format has problems covering most cases.
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> I prefer having everything in the standard_name, in particular
> if
> > > there is no external community actively doing own standardization. In
> > > addition, I don't even know what to call this external list,
> > > 'radioactive_material' maybe, to allow for both nuclides, metastates and
> > > compounds? I still hope to get them into the
> > > > >>> > standard_name liste.
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> Best regards,
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> Heiko
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> On 2017-12-22 17:43, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> > > > >>> >>>> Dear Jonathan,
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>> I think the number of possible isotope names is relatively
> small
> > > (<100
> > > > >>> >>>> - please correct me if I'm wrong) compared to the thousand
> > > upon
> > > > >>> >>>> thousand of possible biological taxa. If so, I wonder if
> normalising
> > > > >>> >>>> out the isotope name is worth the effort of maintaining the
> > > standard
> > > > >>> >>>> list and complication to client software.
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>> 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<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bod
> c.ac.uk%3cmailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>>.
> > > Please also use this e-mail if your
> > > > >>> >>>> requirement is urgent.
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>> >>>> --
> > > > >>> >>>> *From:* CF-metadata <cf-metadata-<mailto:cf-metadata-
> bounces at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > bounces at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> on
> > > behalf of
> > > > >>> >>>> Jonathan Gregory
> > >
> <j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk<mailto:j.m.
> gregory at reading.ac.uk%3cmailto:j.m.gregory at reading.ac.uk>>>
> > > > >>> >>>> *Sent:* 22 December 2017 15:17
> > > > >>> >>>> *To:* cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > > >>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for
> > > volcanic ash
> > > > >>> >>>> and radioactive particles
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>> Dear Heiko and Barbara
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>> I see that "activity concentration" is an technical term, but in
> the
> > > > >>> >>>> broader context of the CF standard name table I feel it would
> be
> > > > >>> >>>> better to say radioactivity_concentration and
> > > radioactivity_content,
> > > > >>> >>>> to make it clear what sort of activity it's about.
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>> As you say, we name chemical species in standard names, but
> > > there are
> > > > >>> >>>> not so many of these that have been requested. I think it's a
> > > choice
> > > > >>> >>>> to be made about whether isotopes should be named
> explicitly.
> > > In the
> > > > >>> >>>> analogous case of biological taxa,
> > > > >>> >>>> https://cf-trac.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/99 discussed not putting
> their
> > > > >>> >>>> identifiers in the standard name. That discussion wasn't
> > > concluded. A
> > > > >>> >>>> similar approach could be taken here, of putting "isotope" in
> the
> > > > >>> >>>> standard name, and requiring there to be a string-valued
> > > coordinate
> > > > >>> >>>> variable identifying the isotope from a standard list (like area
> > > types
> > > > >>> >>>> and regions).
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>> Best wishes
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>> Jonathan
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>> ----- Forwarded message from Heiko Klein
> > >
> <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met
> .no%3cmailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>> -----
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:41:42 +0100
> > > > >>> >>>>> From: Heiko Klein
> > >
> <Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no<mailto:Heiko.Klein at met
> .no%3cmailto:Heiko.Klein at met.no>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> To: SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER Barbara
> > > > >>> >>>>> <Barbara.SCHERLLIN-<mailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-
> PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at%3cmailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at>
> > > PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at<mailto:Barbara.SCHERLLIN-
> PIRSCHER at zamg.ac.at>>,
> > > > >>> >>>>> "cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-<mailto:cf-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3e>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>" <cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-
> <mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu%3cmailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for
> > > volcanic ash
> > > > >>> >>>>> and
> > > > >>> >>>>> radioactive particles
> > > > >>> >>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0)
> > > Gecko/20100101
> > > > >>> >>>>> Thunderbird/52.5.0
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> Dear Barbara and list,
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> I agree with you that both volcanic ash and nuclear particles
> are
> > > > >>> >>>>> insufficiently reflected in the standard-name table and we
> need
> > > a
> > > > >>> >>>>> proposal for new names.
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> We have 'atmosphere_mass_content_of_volcanic_ash'
> which
> > > is the column
> > > > >>> >>>>> load and for concentrations, we have
> > > mass_concentration_of_*_in_air
> > > > >>> >>>>> so I would slightly modify your parameter and propose:
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> mass_concentration_of_volcanic_ash_in_air
> > > > >>> >>>>> canonical units: g/m^3
> > > > >>> >>>>> description: Mass concentration means mass per unit
> volume
> > > and is
> > > > >>> >>>>> used in the construction mass_concentration_of_X_in_Y,
> > > where X is a
> > > > >>> >>>>> material constituent of Y. "Volcanic_ash" means the fine-
> > > grained
> > > > >>> >>>>> products of explosive volcanic eruptions, such as minerals or
> > > > >>> >>>>> crystals, older fragmented rock (e.g. andesite), and glass.
> > > Particles
> > > > >>> >>>>> within a volcanic ash cloud have diameters less than 2 mm.
> > > > >>> >>>>> "Volcanic_ash" does not include non-volcanic dust.
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> Concerning radioactivity, the situation is more difficult. I
> would
> > > > >>> >>>>> say we have 2 basic types: concentrations in air and
> depositions,
> > > and
> > > > >>> >>>>> the time-integral of the first. I would call depositions
> > > 'surface_content'
> > > > >>> >>>>> in CF, since content is defined as: a quantity per unit area. I
> > > > >>> >>>>> propose the following:
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> activity_concentration_of_X_in_air (Bq/m3)
> > > > >>> >>>>> Description: Activity concentration means activity per unit
> > > volume
> > > > >>> >>>>> and is used in the construction
> > > activity_concentration_of_X_in_Y,
> > > > >>> >>>>> where X is a radioactive material and activity denotes the
> > > number of
> > > > >>> >>>>> decays of the material per second.
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> surface_activity_content_of_X (Bq/m2)
> > > > >>> >>>>> Description: "surface" means the lower boundary of the
> > > atmosphere.
> > > > >>> >>>>> "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. activity of X
> means
> > > the
> > > > >>> >>>>> number of radioactive decays of the material X per second.
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> The first is often integrated over time for dose-calculations,
> i.e.
> > > > >>> >>>>> integral_wrt_time in CF-nomenclature:
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> integral_wrt_time_of_activity_concentration_of_X_in_air
> > > (Bq*s/m3)
> > > > >>> >>>>> Description: The phrase "integral_wrt_X_of_Y" means int Y
> dX.
> > > The
> > > > >>> >>>>> data variable should have an axis for X specifying the limits
> of
> > > the
> > > > >>> >>>>> integral as bounds. "wrt" means with respect to. Activity
> > > > >>> >>>>> concentration means activity per unit volume and is used in
> the
> > > > >>> >>>>> construction activity_concentration_of_X_in_Y, where X is a
> > > > >>> >>>>> radioactive material and activity denotes the number of
> decays
> > > of the material per second.
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> The tricky part is the X here, which is a very long list of
> > > > >>> >>>>> radioactive isotopes. I attach the list which is in active use
> for
> > > > >>> >>>>> us, i.e. 383 nuclides including a few meta-states and
> chemical
> > > > >>> >>>>> speciations in particular for Iodine. Usual names for thes ar
> the
> > > > >>> >>>>> second and third column, i.e. H3, Na24, Ar41, Ge77m, Ge77
> ... In
> > > CF,
> > > > >>> >>>>> it is most common to have these names in the standard-
> name
> > > (X in
> > > > >>> >>>>> above proposals) I'm not sure if it is practical possible to add
> > > > >>> >>>>> these 4*383 standard-names to the list? If it is just a
> question of
> > > formatting, I can try to do that.
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> Heiko
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> On 2017-12-18 14:36, SCHERLLIN-PIRSCHER Barbara wrote:
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Dear all,
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> I'd like to ask some questions about appropriate standard
> > > names of
> > > > >>> >>>>>> some
> > > > >>> >>>>>> variables:
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> I'm looking for the standard name of mean concentration
> of
> > > volcanic
> > > > >>> >>>>>> ash at specific altitude levels.
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> I used
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> mass_concentration_of_ash_in_air
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> but the CF convention checker realizes that this is an
> invalid
> > > > >>> >>>>>> standard_name.
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, I did not find a valid standard name yet. Do
> you
> > > > >>> >>>>>> have any recommendations?
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Furthermore, I'm looking for some standard names for
> > > variables
> > > > >>> >>>>>> related to radioactivity.
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> I used
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> deposited_activity_concentration (in Bq/m2).
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> and
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> time_integrated_activity_concentration_in_air (Bq s/m3).
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> The first variable contains information about the deposited
> > > > >>> >>>>>> activity concentration that depends on the type of the
> nuclide,
> > > > >>> >>>>>> time, latitude, and longitude.
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> The second variable contains information about the time-
> > > integrated
> > > > >>> >>>>>> activity concentration of different radionuclides at specific
> > > levels.
> > > > >>> >>>>>> It's dimensions are type of the nuclide, time, height,
> latitude,
> > > > >>> >>>>>> and longitude.
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Do you have any recommendation concerning the
> standard
> > > names of
> > > > >>> >>>>>> these variables?
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Finally, I need to define a variable that contains the
> > > information
> > > > >>> >>>>>> about the radioactive nuclide itself. I defined a character
> > > > >>> >>>>>> variable that uses the (invalid) standard name:
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> radioactive_nuclides
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Do you also have advice for the standard name of this
> > > variable?
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Thanks a lot for your help!
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Barbara
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Dr. Barbara Scherllin-Pirscher
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Fachabteilung Chemische Wettervorhersage/Section
> Chemical
> > > Weather
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Forecasts
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Bereich Daten, Methoden, Modelle/Division Data,
> Methods,
> > > Models
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> ZAMG - Zentralanstalt f?r Meteorologie und Geodynamik
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> A-1190 Wien, Hohe Warte 38
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Tel.: +43 1 36026 2380
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Fax: +43 1 36026 74
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> E-Mail: barbara.scherllin-
> > > pirscher at zamg.ac.at<mailto:barbara.scherllin-pirscher at zamg.ac.at>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> <mailto:barbara.scherllin-pirscher at zamg.ac.at>__
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> www.zamg.ac.at<http://www.zamg.ac.at>
> > > <http://www.zamg.ac.at> <http://www.zamg.ac.at>
> > > > > <http://www.zamg.ac.at>
> > > > >> <http://www.zamg.ac.at>
> > > > >>> > <http://www.zamg.ac.at/>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Join us on facebook:
> > >
> www.facebook.com/zamg.at<http://www.facebook.com/zamg.at<http://w
> ww.facebook.com/zamg.at%3chttp:/www.facebook.com/zamg.at>>
> > > <http://www.facebook.com/zamg.at>
> > > > > <http://www.facebook.com/zamg.at>
> > > > >> <http://www.facebook.com/zamg.at>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/zamg.at>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> Beschreibung: Beschreibung: Beschreibung: Beschreibung:
> > > Beschreibung:
> > > > >>> >>>>>> cid:099c01ccebf6$aa43e440$7ba4168a at zadpc6
> > > <http://www.zamg.at/>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>> >>>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
> > > > >>> >>>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > > >>> >>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-
> metadata
> > > > >>> >>>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> --
> > > > >>> >>>>> Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> > > > >>> >>>>> Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> > > > >>> >>>>> http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>> 1 H - 3 0 0.178E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 2 Na- 24 2 0.128E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 3 Ar- 41 0 0.105E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 4 Co- 58 2 0.113E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 5 Co- 60 2 0.416E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 6 Zn- 72 2 0.414E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 7 Ga- 72 2 0.137E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 8 Ga- 73 2 0.395E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 9 Ge- 75 2 0.140E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 10 Ge- 77m 2 0.128E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 11 Ge- 77 2 0.170E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 12 Ge- 78 2 0.133E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 13 As- 77 2 0.496E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 14 As- 78 2 0.127E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 15 Se- 79 2 0.338E-12
> > > > >>> >>>>> 16 Se- 81m 2 0.202E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 17 Se- 81 2 0.625E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 18 Se- 83m 2 0.990E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 19 Se- 83 2 0.513E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 20 Br- 82m 2 0.189E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 21 Br- 82 2 0.544E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 22 Br- 83 2 0.802E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 23 Br- 84m 2 0.193E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 24 Br- 84 2 0.363E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 25 Kr- 83m 0 0.104E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 26 Kr- 85m 0 0.438E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 27 Kr- 85 0 0.203E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 28 Kr- 87 0 0.152E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 29 Kr- 88 0 0.686E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 30 Kr- 89 0 0.364E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 31 Rb- 86m 2 0.114E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 32 Rb- 86 2 0.430E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 33 Rb- 87 2 0.470E-18
> > > > >>> >>>>> 34 Rb- 88 2 0.642E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 35 Rb- 89 2 0.760E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 36 Sr- 89 2 0.154E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 37 Sr- 90 2 0.787E-09
> > > > >>> >>>>> 38 Sr- 91 2 0.203E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 39 Sr- 92 2 0.711E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 40 Y - 90m 2 0.604E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 41 Y - 90 2 0.301E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 42 Y - 91m 2 0.232E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 43 Y - 91 2 0.137E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 44 Y - 92 2 0.545E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 45 Y - 93 2 0.189E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 46 Y - 94 2 0.608E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 47 Y - 95 2 0.110E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 48 Zr- 93 2 0.231E-13
> > > > >>> >>>>> 49 Zr- 95 2 0.123E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 50 Zr- 97 2 0.115E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 51 Nb- 94m 2 0.185E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 52 Nb- 94 2 0.110E-11
> > > > >>> >>>>> 53 Nb- 95m 2 0.222E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 54 Nb- 95 2 0.228E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 55 Nb- 96 2 0.823E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 56 Nb- 97m 2 0.128E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 57 Nb- 97 2 0.157E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 58 Nb- 98 2 0.227E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 59 Mo- 99 2 0.289E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 60 Mo-101 2 0.791E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 61 Mo-102 2 0.104E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 62 Tc- 99m 2 0.320E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 63 Tc- 99 2 0.103E-12
> > > > >>> >>>>> 64 Tc-101 2 0.814E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 65 Tc-102m 2 0.269E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 66 Tc-102 2 0.131E+00
> > > > >>> >>>>> 67 Tc-104 2 0.642E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 68 Ru-103 2 0.203E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 69 Ru-105 2 0.434E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 70 Ru-106 2 0.219E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 71 Rh-103m 2 0.206E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 72 Rh-105m 2 0.182E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 73 Rh-105 2 0.542E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 74 Rh-106m 2 0.883E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 75 Rh-106 2 0.232E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 76 Rh-107 2 0.532E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 77 Pd-107m 2 0.325E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 78 Pd-107 2 0.338E-14
> > > > >>> >>>>> 79 Pd-109 2 0.143E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 80 Pd-111m 2 0.350E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 81 Pd-111 2 0.525E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 82 Pd-112 2 0.958E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 83 Ag-109m 2 0.175E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 84 Ag-110m 2 0.297E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 85 Ag-111m 2 0.937E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 86 Ag-111 2 0.107E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 87 Ag-112 2 0.615E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 88 Ag-113m 2 0.105E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 89 Ag-113 2 0.363E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 90 Ag-115m 2 0.408E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 91 Ag-115 2 0.550E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 92 Cd-111m 2 0.237E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 93 Cd-113m 2 0.151E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 94 Cd-113 2 0.244E-23
> > > > >>> >>>>> 95 Cd-115m 2 0.180E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 96 Cd-115 2 0.360E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 97 Cd-117m 2 0.566E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 98 Cd-117 2 0.741E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 99 Cd-118 2 0.230E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 100 In-113m 2 0.116E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 101 In-115m 2 0.428E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 102 In-115 2 0.431E-23
> > > > >>> >>>>> 103 In-116m 2 0.213E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 104 In-116 2 0.488E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 105 In-117m 2 0.993E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 106 In-117 2 0.263E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 107 In-118m 2 0.263E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 108 In-118 2 0.139E+00
> > > > >>> >>>>> 109 In-119m 2 0.642E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 110 In-119 2 0.462E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 111 Sn-117m 2 0.573E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 112 Sn-119m 2 0.328E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 113 Sn-121m 2 0.440E-09
> > > > >>> >>>>> 114 Sn-121 2 0.718E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 115 Sn-123m 2 0.289E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 116 Sn-123 2 0.622E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 117 Sn-125 2 0.831E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 118 Sn-126 2 0.220E-12
> > > > >>> >>>>> 119 Sn-127 2 0.908E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 120 Sn-128 2 0.196E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 121 Sn-130 2 0.312E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 122 Sb-124m 2 0.569E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 123 Sb-124 2 0.133E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 124 Sb-125 2 0.805E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 125 Sb-126m 2 0.608E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 126 Sb-126 2 0.647E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 127 Sb-127 2 0.211E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 128 Sb-128m 2 0.111E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 129 Sb-128 2 0.214E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 130 Sb-129 2 0.444E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 131 Sb-130m 2 0.175E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 132 Sb-130 2 0.312E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 133 Sb-131 2 0.502E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 134 Te-125m 2 0.138E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 135 Te-127m 2 0.736E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 136 Te-127 2 0.205E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 137 Te-129m 2 0.240E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 138 Te-129 2 0.165E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 139 Te-131m 2 0.642E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 140 Te-131 2 0.462E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 141 Te-132 2 0.247E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 142 Te-133m 2 0.209E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 143 Te-133 2 0.924E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 144 Te-134 2 0.275E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 145 I -129 1 0.138E-14
> > > > >>> >>>>> 146 I -130m 1 0.130E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 147 I -130 1 0.155E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 148 I -131 1 0.994E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 149 I -132 1 0.836E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 150 I -133m 1 0.770E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 151 I -133 1 0.921E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 152 I -134m 1 0.321E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 153 I -134 1 0.222E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 154 I -135 1 0.288E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 155 Xe-129m 0 0.100E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 156 Xe-131m 0 0.680E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 157 Xe-133m 0 0.355E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 158 Xe-133 0 0.152E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 159 Xe-134m 0 0.239E+01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 160 Xe-135m 0 0.743E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 161 Xe-135 0 0.210E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 162 Xe-137 0 0.296E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 163 Xe-138 0 0.815E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 164 Cs-134m 2 0.664E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 165 Cs-134 2 0.107E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 166 Cs-135m 2 0.218E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 167 Cs-135 2 0.956E-14
> > > > >>> >>>>> 168 Cs-136 2 0.617E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 169 Cs-137 2 0.729E-09
> > > > >>> >>>>> 170 Cs-138 2 0.359E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 171 Ba-135m 2 0.671E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 172 Ba-137m 2 0.453E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 173 Ba-139 2 0.139E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 174 Ba-140 2 0.627E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 175 La-140 2 0.456E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 176 La-141 2 0.498E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 177 La-142 2 0.125E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 178 La-143 2 0.825E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 179 Ce-141 2 0.243E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 180 Ce-142 2 0.440E-24
> > > > >>> >>>>> 181 Ce-143 2 0.584E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 182 Ce-144 2 0.282E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 183 Ce-146 2 0.814E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 184 Pr-142m 2 0.791E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 185 Pr-142 2 0.101E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 186 Pr-143 2 0.591E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 187 Pr-144m 2 0.161E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 188 Pr-144 2 0.669E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 189 Pr-145 2 0.322E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 190 Pr-146 2 0.477E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 191 Pr-147 2 0.963E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 192 Nd-144 2 0.105E-22
> > > > >>> >>>>> 193 Nd-147 2 0.730E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 194 Nd-149 2 0.111E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 195 Nd-151 2 0.932E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 196 Nd-152 2 0.101E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 197 Pm-147 2 0.838E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 198 Pm-148m 2 0.194E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 199 Pm-148 2 0.149E-05
> > >
> > > > >>> >>>>> 200 Pm-149 2 0.363E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 201 Pm-150 2 0.718E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 202 Pm-151 2 0.678E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 203 Pm-152m 2 0.642E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 204 Pm-152 2 0.282E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 205 Sm-147 2 0.205E-18
> > > > >>> >>>>> 206 Sm-148 2 0.275E-23
> > > > >>> >>>>> 207 Sm-149 2 0.220E-23
> > > > >>> >>>>> 208 Sm-151 2 0.236E-09
> > > > >>> >>>>> 209 Sm-153 2 0.414E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 210 Sm-155 2 0.520E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 211 Sm-156 2 0.205E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 212 Eu-154 2 0.256E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 213 Eu-155 2 0.458E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 214 Eu-156 2 0.528E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 215 Eu-157 2 0.127E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 216 Eu-158 2 0.252E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 217 Eu-159 2 0.638E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 218 Gd-159 2 0.104E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 219 Gd-162 2 0.116E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 220 Tb-160 2 0.111E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 221 Tb-161 2 0.116E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 222 Tb-162m 2 0.863E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 223 Tb-162 2 0.155E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 224 Tb-163 2 0.592E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 225 Dy-165 2 0.819E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 226 Hg-206 2 0.144E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 227 Tl-206 2 0.276E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 228 Tl-207 2 0.241E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 229 Tl-208 2 0.373E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 230 Tl-209 2 0.525E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 231 Tl-210 2 0.889E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 232 Pb-207m 2 0.866E+00
> > > > >>> >>>>> 233 Pb-209 2 0.583E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 234 Pb-210 2 0.105E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 235 Pb-211 2 0.320E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 236 Pb-212 2 0.181E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 237 Pb-213 2 0.116E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 238 Pb-214 2 0.431E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 239 Bi-209 2 0.110E-25
> > > > >>> >>>>> 240 Bi-210 2 0.160E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 241 Bi-211 2 0.537E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 242 Bi-212 2 0.191E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 243 Bi-213 2 0.246E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 244 Bi-214 2 0.586E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 245 Bi-215 2 0.165E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 246 Po-210 2 0.580E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 247 Po-211 2 0.133E+01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 248 Po-212 2 0.228E+07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 249 Po-213 2 0.165E+06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 250 Po-214 2 0.423E+04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 251 Po-215 2 0.389E+03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 252 Po-216 2 0.462E+01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 253 Po-217 2 0.693E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 254 Po-218 2 0.379E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 255 At-215 2 0.693E+04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 256 At-216 2 0.231E+04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 257 At-217 2 0.217E+02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 258 At-218 2 0.347E+00
> > > > >>> >>>>> 259 At-219 2 0.128E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 260 Rn-218 2 0.198E+02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 261 Rn-219 2 0.173E+00
> > > > >>> >>>>> 262 Rn-220 2 0.126E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 263 Rn-221 2 0.462E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 264 Rn-222 2 0.210E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 265 Rn-223 2 0.269E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 266 Fr-221 2 0.241E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 267 Fr-222 2 0.781E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 268 Fr-223 2 0.525E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 269 Ra-222 2 0.182E-01
> > > > >>> >>>>> 270 Ra-223 0 0.702E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 271 Ra-224 0 0.220E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 272 Ra-225 0 0.542E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 273 Ra-226 0 0.137E-10
> > > > >>> >>>>> 274 Ra-227 0 0.280E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 275 Ra-228 0 0.328E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 276 Ra-229 0 0.693E+12
> > > > >>> >>>>> 277 Ac-225 2 0.802E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 278 Ac-226 2 0.664E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 279 Ac-227 2 0.102E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 280 Ac-228 2 0.314E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 281 Ac-229 2 0.175E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 282 Th-226 2 0.374E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 283 Th-227 2 0.441E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 284 Th-228 2 0.115E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 285 Th-229 2 0.299E-11
> > > > >>> >>>>> 286 Th-230 2 0.275E-12
> > > > >>> >>>>> 287 Th-231 2 0.755E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 288 Th-232 2 0.156E-17
> > > > >>> >>>>> 289 Th-233 2 0.520E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 290 Th-234 2 0.333E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 291 Pa-230 2 0.453E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 292 Pa-231 2 0.676E-12
> > > > >>> >>>>> 293 Pa-232 2 0.612E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 294 Pa-233 2 0.297E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 295 Pa-234m 2 0.987E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 296 Pa-234 2 0.285E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 297 U -230 2 0.386E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 298 U -231 2 0.187E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 299 U -232 2 0.305E-09
> > > > >>> >>>>> 300 U -233 2 0.136E-12
> > > > >>> >>>>> 301 U -234 2 0.889E-13
> > > > >>> >>>>> 302 U -235 2 0.309E-16
> > > > >>> >>>>> 303 U -236 2 0.919E-15
> > > > >>> >>>>> 304 U -237 2 0.119E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 305 U -238 2 0.487E-17
> > > > >>> >>>>> 306 U -239 2 0.492E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 307 U -240 2 0.134E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 308 Np-235 2 0.196E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 309 Np-236m 2 0.170E-15
> > > > >>> >>>>> 310 Np-236 2 0.875E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 311 Np-237 2 0.103E-13
> > > > >>> >>>>> 312 Np-238 2 0.382E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 313 Np-239 2 0.341E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 314 Np-240m 2 0.158E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 315 Np-240 2 0.183E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 316 Pu-235 2 0.444E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 317 Pu-236 2 0.771E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 318 Pu-237 2 0.176E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 319 Pu-238 2 0.255E-09
> > > > >>> >>>>> 320 Pu-239 2 0.900E-12
> > > > >>> >>>>> 321 Pu-240 2 0.334E-11
> > > > >>> >>>>> 322 Pu-241 2 0.166E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 323 Pu-242 2 0.580E-13
> > > > >>> >>>>> 324 Pu-243 2 0.387E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 325 Pu-244 2 0.275E-15
> > > > >>> >>>>> 326 Pu-245 2 0.193E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 327 Am-240 2 0.378E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 328 Am-241 2 0.480E-10
> > > > >>> >>>>> 329 Am-242* 2 0.495E+02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 330 Am-242m 2 0.145E-09
> > > > >>> >>>>> 331 Am-242 2 0.120E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 332 Am-243 2 0.276E-11
> > > > >>> >>>>> 333 Am-244m 2 0.444E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 334 Am-244 2 0.191E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 335 Am-245 2 0.917E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 336 Cm-241 2 0.229E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 337 Cm-242 2 0.492E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 338 Cm-243 2 0.686E-09
> > > > >>> >>>>> 339 Cm-244 2 0.125E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 340 Cm-245 2 0.236E-11
> > > > >>> >>>>> 341 Cm-246 2 0.399E-11
> > > > >>> >>>>> 342 Cm-247 2 0.137E-14
> > > > >>> >>>>> 343 Cm-248 2 0.467E-13
> > > > >>> >>>>> 344 Cm-249 2 0.181E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 345 Cm-250 2 0.318E-11
> > > > >>> >>>>> 346 Bk-249 2 0.255E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 347 Bk-250 2 0.598E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 348 Cf-249 2 0.610E-10
> > > > >>> >>>>> 349 Cf-250 2 0.169E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 350 Cf-251 2 0.275E-10
> > > > >>> >>>>> 351 Cf-252 2 0.829E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 352 Cf-253 2 0.456E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 353 Cf-254 2 0.133E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 354 Es-253 2 0.392E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 355 Es-254m 2 0.491E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 356 Es-254 2 0.291E-07
> > > > >>> >>>>> 357 Es-255 2 0.209E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 358 C - 11 0 0.567E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 359 N - 13 0 0.116E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 360 O - 15 0 0.567E-02
> > > > >>> >>>>> 361 F - 18 0 0.115E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 380 Mn- 54 2 2.571E-08
> > > > >>> >>>>> 545 I -129e 1 0.138E-14
> > > > >>> >>>>> 645 I -129o 1 0.138E-14
> > > > >>> >>>>> 745 I -129a 1 0.138E-14
> > > > >>> >>>>> 547 I -130e 1 0.155E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 647 I -130o 1 0.155E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 747 I -130a 1 0.155E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 548 I -131e 1 0.994E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 648 I -131o 1 0.994E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 748 I -131a 1 0.994E-06
> > > > >>> >>>>> 549 I -132e 1 0.836E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 649 I -132o 1 0.836E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 749 I -132a 1 0.836E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 551 I -133e 1 0.921E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 651 I -133o 1 0.921E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 751 I -133a 1 0.921E-05
> > > > >>> >>>>> 553 I -134e 1 0.222E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 653 I -134o 1 0.222E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 753 I -134a 1 0.222E-03
> > > > >>> >>>>> 554 I -135e 1 0.288E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 654 I -135o 1 0.288E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>> 754 I -135a 1 0.288E-04
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>> >>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
> > > > >>> >>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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.
> > > > >>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>> >>>> --
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>>
> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>> >>>> CF-metadata mailing list
> > > > >>> >>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-
> > > metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > > >>> >>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> > > > >>> >>>>
> > > > >>> >>>
> > > > >>> >>> --
> > > > >>> >>> Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> > > > >>> >>> Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> > > > >>> >>> http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> > > > >>> >>> ________________________________
> > > > >>> >>> 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.
> > > > >>> >>> ________________________________
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >> ----- End forwarded message -----
> > > > >>> >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>> >> CF-metadata mailing list
> > > > >>> >> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-
> metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > > >>> >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> > > > >>> >>
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > --
> > > > >>> > Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> > > > >>> > Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> > > > >>> > http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> > > > >>> > _______________________________________________
> > > > >>> > CF-metadata mailing list
> > > > >>> > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto: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.
> > > > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> > > > >>> Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> > > > >>> http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ----- End forwarded message -----
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> CF-metadata mailing list
> > > > >> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto: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.
> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> CF-metadata mailing list
> > > > >> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
> > > > >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> > > > > Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> > > > > http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dr. Heiko Klein Norwegian Meteorological Institute
> > > > Tel. + 47 22 96 32 58 P.O. Box 43 Blindern
> > > > http://www.met.no 0313 Oslo NORWAY
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- End forwarded message -----
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CF-metadata mailing list
> > > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > Any email message from EUMETSAT is sent in good faith but shall neither
> be
> > > binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by EUMETSAT,
> except
> > > where provided for in a written agreement or contract or if explicitly
> stated in
> > > the email. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email
> are
> > > solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of
> > > EUMETSAT. This message and any attachments are intended for the sole
> use
> > > of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information.
> > > Any unauthorised use, disclosure, dissemination or distribution (in whole
> or
> > > in part) of its contents is not permitted. If you received this message in
> error,
> > > please notify the sender and delete it from your system.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > 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.
> > > ________________________________
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-
> > > metadata/attachments/20180130/a077aa66/attachment.html>
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Subject: Digest Footer
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CF-metadata mailing list
> > > CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> > > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > End of CF-metadata Digest, Vol 177, Issue 48
> > > ********************************************
> >
----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Wed Jan 31 2018 - 07:48:50 GMT
