Hi, we had an internal discussion within OceanSITES about these sediment trap data names, which resulted in one issue that still needs to be resolved.
First off, the first two names are not affected, and we would like to see those published a.s.a.p. as suggested below: sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water We think these are ready for publication now. The concern with the others was voiced by Laurent Coppola and is about the wording "expressed_as". For the particular situation here, this whole thing about "A_expressed_as_B" seems like a poor choice, because we are making no attempt to express A. What is being reported is B, and B only, with no implication what A might be. In other words, if you want to tell somebody how much sugar is in a cake, what would you say: 1. "amount of sugar in cake" 2. "amount of batter expressed as sugar in cake" We prefer option 1. Option 2 is ambiguous in that it is not intuitively clear what "100 g" would mean: 2.a) 100 grams of pure sugar 2.b) 100 grams of batter, some of which is sugar 2.c) the total calories of the cake, if they all came from sugar, would be equivalent to 100 grams of pure sugar (but only some are actually sugar, while some portion is from other ingredients) Would it be acceptable to abandon this "expressed_as" wording here, and instead model the new names like the following ones (which already exist): sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_iron_in_sea_water sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_organic_phosphorus_in_sea_water sinking_mole_flux_of_particulate_silicon_in_sea_water (For confusion, there are three other existing standard names with sinking mole fluxes, which do use the "expressed_as"; two of these make more sense than the third. Should we be making all of these consistent, i.e. change the existing ones? That is a separate issue though.) Regards, Matthias On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 09:22 +0000, alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk wrote: > Dear Stephane, Matthias, All, > > I know that these sediment trap names have been sitting around for an > awfully long time - my apologies it has taken this long for me to > review the original discussion. I think the only bone of contention > was, as you say, around the use of the word "total" and there was a > general opinion that the names would be useful with or without it. So, > belatedly, I would like to come down on the side of not including > "total" in the names. In CF, we have always taken the view that > something should be regarded as fully inclusive, i.e. total, unless > stated otherwise . As the person looking after the standard name table > my concern is always to make our list of names as internally consistent > as possible, hence my preference for sticking with the established CF > practice on this point. I have added a sentence to the definitions of > the "particulate_matter" names to emphasize that it includes both > organic and inorganic species. > > Regarding the nitrogen and carbon names, we should write > "particulate_[organic|inorganic]_matter_expressed_as_carbon|nitrogen" > rather than simply "particulate_[organic|inorganic]_carbon|nitrogen", > again for consistency with other names, otherwise they are fine. > > If you are happy with the following versions of the names and > definitions then they can be accepted for inclusion in the standard > name table. > > I am aware that the original proposal from Matthias contained names for > a number of other chemical species, but I will pick those up in a > separate posting. > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water (canonical units: > kg m-2 s-1) ' In accordance with common usage in geophysical > disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux density" in > physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of particulate matter > suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive downwards and is > calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding fluid. Sinking > mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after water has > evaporated. "Particulate matter" includes particles composed of both > organic and inorganic chemical species.' > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water (canonical > units: kg m-2 s-1) ' In accordance with common usage in geophysical > disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux density" in > physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of particulate matter > suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive downwards and is > calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding fluid. Sinking > mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after water has > evaporated.' > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water > (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) ' In accordance with common usage in > geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux > density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of > particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive > downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding > fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after > water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the > construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. > It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated > solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other > chemical constituents of A. "Particulate matter" includes particles > composed of both organic and inorganic chemical species.' > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water > (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in > geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux > density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of > particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive > downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding > fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after > water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the > construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. > It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated > solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other > chemical constituents of A.' > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_matter_expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water > (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in > geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux > density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of > particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive > downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding > fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after > water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the > construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. > It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated > solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other > chemical constituents of A.' > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water > (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in > geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux > density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of > particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive > downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding > fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after > water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the > construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. > It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated > solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other > chemical constituents of A. "Particulate matter" includes particles > composed of both organic and inorganic chemical species.' > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water > (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in > geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux > density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of > particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive > downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding > fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after > water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the > construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. > It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated > solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other > chemical constituents of A.' > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_matter_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water > (canonical units: kg m-2 s-1) 'In accordance with common usage in > geophysical disciplines, "flux" implies per unit area, called "flux > density" in physics. "Sinking" is the gravitational settling of > particulate matter suspended in a liquid. A sinking flux is positive > downwards and is calculated relative to the movement of the surrounding > fluid. Sinking mass flux is understood as dry mass, i.e. weighed after > water has evaporated. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the > construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A. > It means that the quantity indicated by the standard name is calculated > solely with respect to the B contained in A, neglecting all other > chemical constituents of A.' > > Best wishes, Alison > > ------ > Alison Pamment Tel: +44 > 1235 778065 > Centre for Environmental Data Analysis Email: > alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk > STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > R25, 2.22 > Harwell Campus, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf > > Of Stephane TAROT > > Sent: 27 November 2015 14:50 > > To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > > Cc: GARO; LANKHORST > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > In december 2013, some standard names (see below) for sediment trap > > data parameters were almost approved. > > > > Last august, I suggested that we can maybe consider them as approved. I > > had no response (so, nobody disagrees). > > > > What is the next step in order to have them added to the official list > > of standard names ? > > > > > > Best regards > > > > Stéphane Tarot > > > > > > > > > > Le 14/08/2015 10:45, Stephane TAROT a écrit : > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'd like to put back this subject on top of the list. > > > > > > The following 8 new parameters were almost approved in december 2013 : > > > > > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water > > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water > > > > > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water > > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water > > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_carbon_in_sea_water > > > > > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water > > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_nitrogen_in_sea_water > > > sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_nitrogen_in_sea_water > > > > > > (with a canonical unit : kg m-2 s-1) > > > > > > > > > There was only a remark from Roy who suggested to add "total" for > > > > > > total_carbon (=organic+inorganic in its definition) and total_nitrogen > > > in names 5 and 8 > > > > > > But he also said it shouldn't be a stopper to include/exclude it. > > > > > > > > > So can we agree on those new parameters, and add them to the list ? > > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > Stéphane Tarot > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 04/02/2015 17:54, Jonathan Gregory a écrit : > > >> Dear Nan and Alison > > >> > > >> I think Alison's view on this would be helpful in particular. > > >> > > >> Best wishes > > >> > > >> Jonathan > > >> > > >> ----- Forwarded message from Nan Galbraith <ngalbra...@whoi.edu> ----- > > >> > > >>> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:05:56 -0500 > > >>> From: Nan Galbraith <ngalbra...@whoi.edu> > > >>> To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu, "mlankho...@ucsd.edu >> Matthias > > >>> Lankhorst" > > >>> <mlankho...@ucsd.edu> > > >>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data > > >>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:31.0) > > >>> Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 > > >>> > > >>> Hello CF - > > >>> > > >>> This request for standard names for sediment trap data variables seems > > >>> to have languished since mid-December. Are we waiting for Matthias to > > >>> respond to comments from Roy and Jonathan, or are we ready to make > > >>> a decision? > > >>> > > >>> I may have left out some of the messages on the thread, which were not > > >>> included in the last round of emails. > > >>> > > >>> Regards - Nan > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 12/9/13 7:17 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: > > >>>> Dear All, > > >>>> > > >>>> My reason for including 'total' in these cases is because I've seen > > >>>> it used in that way by communities handling those particular > > >>>> parameters. Question is whether we follow CF past practice or > > >>>> established usage outside CF. I would prefer to follow community > > >>>> practice, but don't see inclusion/exclusion of total as a > > >>>> show-stopper. Jonathan and I (not for the first time) make the > > >>>> opinion score 1 all. Anybody else any views on this? > > >>>> > > >>>> Cheers, Roy. > > >>>> ________________________________________ > > >>>> From: CF-metadata [cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of > > >>>> Jonathan Gregory [j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk] > > >>>> Sent: 08 December 2013 00:01 > > >>>> Subject: [CF-metadata] standard names for sediment trap data > > >>>> > > >>>> Dear Roy > > >>>> > > >>>>> Thinking about it over night (I'm currently in San Diego), I think > > >>>>> a way forward might be to use the word 'total' in all cases, but > > >>>>> define is as 'in every form', which provides a common denominator > > >>>>> between these two usages. > > >>>> Yes, that's possible, but even simpler is to say that if nothing is > > >>>> specified, > > >>>> the *default* is "in every form". I think that is the approach we > > >>>> have usually > > >>>> taken, although I can't think of examples off the top of my head. I > > >>>> would note, > > >>>> however, that there is only one existing standard name containing > > >>>> the word > > >>>> "total" viz > > >>>> sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale > > >>>> in which "total" appears because it is the technical name of that > > >>>> scale. > > >>>> (And I'm in Toronto on the way to San Francisco.) > > >>>> > > >>>> Best wishes > > >>>> > > >>>> Jonathan > > >>>> On 12/6/13 3:24 PM, Matthias Lankhorst wrote: > > >>>>> Hi, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I would like to bring this discussion about new standard names for > > >>>>> sediment > > >>>>> trap data to a conclusion. I think what we learned from the > > >>>>> discussion was > > >>>>> that: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> - we should keep "sinking" in there, rather than "downward" > > >>>>> - we should not include "sediment_trap" wording in the names > > >>>>> - uncertainty remains wrt wording of silicon, silica, ... > > >>>>> - uncertainty remains wrt including isotope ratio information > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> As far as I can tell, the following are not subject to the above > > >>>>> uncertainties. Are there any objections to declaring victory and > > >>>>> accepting > > >>>>> these into the official names list: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_matter_in_sea_water > > >>>>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_matter_in_sea_water > > >>>>> > > >>>>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_carbon_in_sea_water > > >>>>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_carbon_in_sea_water > > >>>>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_carbon_in_sea_water > > >>>>> > > >>>>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_organic_nitrogen_in_sea_water > > >>>>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_inorganic_nitrogen_in_sea_water > > >>>>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_nitrogen_in_sea_water > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Uncertainties still need to be resolved before proceeding with my > > >>>>> other > > >>>>> suggestions below (and possible amendments thereof): > > >>>>> > > >>>>> sinking_mass_flux_of_particulate_XXX_in_sea_water, where XXX is: > > >>>>> - aluminum > > >>>>> - iron > > >>>>> - phosphorous > > >>>>> - silica > > >>>>> - biogenic_silica > > >>>>> - lithogenic_silica > > >>>>> - calcium > > >>>>> - titanium > > >>>>> - manganese > > >>>>> - barium > > >>>>> - magnesium > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Respectfully, Matthias > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> ******************************************************* > > >>> * Nan Galbraith Information Systems Specialist * > > >>> * Upper Ocean Processes Group Mail Stop 29 * > > >>> * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution * > > >>> * Woods Hole, MA 02543 (508) 289-2444 * > > >>> ******************************************************* > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> CF-metadata mailing list > > >>> CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > > >>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata > > >> ----- End forwarded message ----- > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 -- _______________________________________ Dr. Matthias Lankhorst Scripps Institution of Oceanography 9500 Gilman Drive, Mail Code 0230 La Jolla, CA 92093-0230 USA Phone: +1 858 822 5013 Fax: +1 858 534 9820 E-Mail: mlankho...@ucsd.edu http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~mlankhorst/ _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
