OK, thanks. Sorry for not keeping up. Jonathan ----- Forwarded message from "Lowry, Roy K." <r...@bodc.ac.uk> -----
> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:19:56 +0000 > From: "Lowry, Roy K." <r...@bodc.ac.uk> > To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk>, "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" > <cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu> > Subject: RE: [CF-metadata] New standard name for > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water > > Dear Jonathan, > > I think we've lost the thread a little here. I initially suggested TPH until > I realised the nature of Mike's measurements. Once I did I withdrew the > suggestion. Therefore the 'total' or 'no total' debate is possibly a red > herring. > > Cheers, Roy. > > -----Original Message----- > From: CF-metadata [mailto:cf-metadata-boun...@cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of > Jonathan Gregory > Sent: 06 July 2016 09:39 > To: cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > Subject: [CF-metadata] New standard name for > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water > > Dear Chris > > I'm aware that I've caused frustration before by insisting on this point, but > believe me, my aim is not to be annoying! We do actually have "total" in two > standard names, where it was a technical term which seemed essential for > clarification and which could not easily be explained in simpler terms. That > is, in those two names: > atmosphere_stability_total_totals_index > sea_water_ph_reported_on_total_scale > "total" doesn't mean an aggregation, but something rather specific. In other > cases, we assume that "total" is intended if there isn't a qualification. CF > standard names follow commonly used terms when those are systematic and self- > explanatory or there is no alternative, but they aren't necessarily the same > as common terms. I think in many cases the CF standard name is an answer to > the question "What does that mean?" rather than to "What do you call that?", > because this is useful in the interdisciplinary context of CF. > > Therefore I still feel that total should be omitted from the standard name. > In the definition we could say that this is often/usually called "total" and > certainly we would explain it refers to all phases and compounds together. > It would be useful to hear other opinions on this. > > Thanks for your patience. Best wishes > > Jonathan > > ----- Forwarded message from Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> ----- > > > Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:09:59 -0700 > > From: Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> > > To: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk> > > CC: "cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu" <cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu> > > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] New standard name for > > mass_fraction_of_petroleum_in_sea_water > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Gregory > > <j.m.greg...@reading.ac.uk> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks - I understand. In choosing CF standard names we generally > > > assume that the intention is to be comprehensive by default, and we > > > add more words in order to be specific, for example > > > atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_cloud means all kinds of cloud, > > > and atmosphere_optical_thickness_due_to_convective_cloud > > > is more restrictive. Omitting "total" in your name would be > > > consistent with this pattern, in order to mean all phases. > > > > > > > Indeed -- however, the "total" in "total petroleum hydrocarbons" is very > > much part of the name in common usage. And I think the "total" refers both > > to phase: droplets vs dissolved, and also to the multiple compounds and > > classes of compound, like in contrast, with, say" Polycyclic aromatic > > hydrocarbon" (PAH). So I say we keep the "total" in the name. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_petroleum_hydrocarbon > > > > If someone is concerned about what the instrument measures, I'd ask someone > > technical at the company of TPH captures it for them. > > > > (after all, what the instrument REALLY measures is Fluorescence...) > > > > > > -CHB > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. > > Oceanographer > > > > Emergency Response Division > > NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice > > 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax > > Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception > > > > chris.bar...@noaa.gov > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > CF-metadata@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. > ________________________________ ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list CF-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
