Hi folks. I don't know if you received what I sent early about IOOS Biological Data services termnilogy and Darwin Core standards. If you want to create your own vocab go ahead. we will keep talking to our self. I think there is now an opportunity to figure out how to talk between CF and Darwin Core. FYI- Darwin Core is the standard used by Biodiversity community, GBIF http://www.gbif.org/ and by IOOS Biological group. Thanks Hassan
*Hassan Moustahfid, PhD. Biology/Ecosystem Observing Lead *NOAA/ U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Program Office Operations Division 1100 Wayne Avenue – Suite 1225 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: 301-427-2447 Email: hassan.moustah...@noaa.gov http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/ *Imagination is more important than knowledge. knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. -Albert Einstein* On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:38 PM, John Graybeal <grayb...@marinemetadata.org>wrote: > +1 Nan, great summary > > CF should prepare for the day when it needs to interoperate with multiple > authorities, e.g., 2 different species vocabularies. It will not be > possible for one vocabulary to serve all the scientific needs. We are on > the right track here, let's see if we can solve the whole issue by ensuring > that the species name reference either be a unique identifier, or be > convertible, using automated means, to a unique identifier. > > John > > > > On Mar 25, 2013, at 11:18, Nan Galbraith <ngalbra...@whoi.edu> wrote: > > > Hi all - > > > > Species taxonomies are not like chemical vocabularies, in that terms for > > organisms change over time. There are some big projects involved in > > maintaining these taxonomies, and we probably don't want to commit > > to launching a parallel effort. > > > > The ubio project has a decent description of the problem, at > > http://www.ubio.org/index.php?pagename=background_intro > > > > So, it seems to me that if we're going to expand CF to accommodate > > biological data, we should follow Roy's advice, and have a 'generic' > > standard name that means 'organism count' and add at least one required > > attribute pointing to a taxonomic name server (with a version date). The > > 'current' species name could be included in the long_name attribute. > > > > Although it's a valid point that existing search tools don't know about > > extra attributes, the effort of keeping up with the changes in terms > could > > render CF useless for this kind of data otherwise. > > > > Regards - Nan > > > > > > On 3/25/13 5:00 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote: > >> Dear all > >> > >> I agree with Philip that cfu should be spelled out. I was also going to > make > >> the same point about Roy's proposal being different from our treatment > of > >> chemical species, which are encoded in the standard name; this system > seems to > >> be working. One reason for keeping this approach was the "green dog" > problem. > >> That particular phrase is actually Roy's, if I remember correctly. That > is, we > >> wish to prevent nonsensical constructions, by approving each name which > makes > >> (chemical) sense individually. > >> > >> However Roy argues that there is an order of magnitude more biological > species > >> to deal with than chemical. I don't think that keeping the same approach > >> (encoding in the standard name) would break the system, but it would > make the > >> standard name table very large. Perhaps more importantly, if there were > so > >> many species, I expect that data-writers would simply assume that each > of the > >> possible combinations of pattern and species did already exist in the > standard > >> name table, without bothering to check or have them approved. That > would defeat > >> the object of the system of individual approval. > >> > >> We don't have to follow the chemical approach. For named geographical > >> regions and surface area types (vegetation types etc.) we use > string-valued > >> coordinate variables, rather like Roy proposes here. To follow that > approach > >> we would need a new table, subsidiary to the standard name table, > containing > >> a list of controlled names of biological species. We would use the same > >> approval process to add names to this list as we do for the standard > name > >> table. (This is what we do for geographical regions and area types.) We > would > >> then have a standard_name such as > >> number_concentration_of_biological_species_in_sea_water > >> whose definition would note that a data variable with this > standard_name must > >> have a string-valued auxiliary coordinate variable of biological_species > >> containing a valid name from the biological species table. If there is > just > >> one species, the auxiliary coordinate variable wouldn't need a > dimension, > >> but this construction would also allow a single data variable to > contain data > >> for several species, by having a dimension of size greater than one. > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Jonathan > >> _______________________________________________ > >> CF-metadata mailing list > >> CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > >> > > > > > > -- > > ******************************************************* > > * Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist * > > * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 * > > * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution * > > * Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 * > > ******************************************************* > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CF-metadata mailing list > > CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > > > > --------------- > John Graybeal > Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org > grayb...@marinemetadata.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata >
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata