Dear Alison, thank you and your colleagues for including this long list so fast. I'm pleased to see that the search-interface on the webpage didn't suffer under the extension. Great work!
Best wishes, Heiko On 2018-02-15 12:29, alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk wrote: > Dear Heiko, > > Thank you for sending me the list of isotope names with updated definitions. > The names themselves are agreed and as you say that you will need to use all > of the isotopes in due course I decided the best approach would be to upload > them all into the standard names editor, mark them as accepted and then go > ahead and publish them straight away. I am pleased to say that the names are > all now in the standard name table (version 49) on the CF website. > > I'd like to acknowledge my CEDA colleagues Sam Pepler and Andrew Harwood for > their work in integrating a bulk upload tool into the editor and my colleague > Gwen Moncoiffe at the British Oceanographic Data Centre for her help in > publishing the names in the NERC Vocabulary Server. I couldn't have processed > this many names so quickly without their help! > > Best wishes, > Alison > > ------ > Alison Pamment Tel: +44 1235 778065 > NCAS/Centre for Environmental Data Archival Email: > alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk > STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > R25, 2.22 > Harwell Oxford, Didcot, OX11 0QX, U.K. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Heiko Klein [mailto:heiko.kl...@met.no] > Sent: 05 February 2018 09:27 > To: Pamment, Alison (STFC,RAL,RALSP) <alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk>; > cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu > Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Standard_name proposal for volcanic ash and > radioactive particles > > Dear Alison, > > I agree on all your textual changes to the descriptions and units of the > standard-names. Please find attached the new table with the standard-names > connected to the isotopes. These are the isotopes in active use. > > If it is to difficult or distracting to include all isotopes into the > standard-name table, we could reduce the list to a few examples, i.e. > 137Cs, 90Sr (aerosols, important fallout isotopes), 131I (gas), 133Xe (noble > gas), 242m1Am (several metastates). But these are only examples and I would > start using the other names, too. > > > Best regards, > > Heiko > > > On 2018-01-31 16:02, alison.pamm...@stfc.ac.uk wrote: >> Dear Heiko et al, >> >> Many thanks for your proposals for volcanic and isotope names and for all >> the comments in the discussion. I think the patterns of the names that have >> been agreed look fine, also the mixed case naming convention for the >> isotopes. >> >>> 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. >>> >> I suggest the canonical units should be kg m-3 as for other >> mass_concentration names. It would still be fine to use g m-3 in your files. >> Okay? > > Of course, kg should be the canonical unit. > >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> This looks fine. I suggest a minor tweak to separate the sentences defining >> 'radioactivity' and 'radioactivity_concentration' (this makes them easier to >> reuse in other definitions): >> ' "Radioactivity" means the number of radioactive decays of a material per >> second. "Radioactivity concentration" means radioactivity per unit volume of >> the medium.' >> Okay? > > Agreed. > >> >>> 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. >>> >> This looks fine. I suggest minor changes to the definition: >> 'The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere. >> "Content" indicates a quantity per unit area. "Radioactivity" means the >> number of radioactive decays of a material per second.' >> Okay? > > Ok > >> >>> 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. >>> >> This looks fine. I suggest minor changes to the definition: >> '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. The >> phrase "wrt" means "with respect to". "Radioactivity" means the number of >> radioactive decays of a material per second. "Radioactivity concentration" >> means radioactivity per unit volume of the medium.' >> Okay? > > Ok > >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> On a general point, the discussion raised the question of whether we should >> allow mixed case standard names. Certainly the conventions only say that >> they are case sensitive and we do in fact have one existing standard name >> that includes an upper case character, >> photolysis_rate_of_ozone_to_1D_oxygen_atom, so we have a precedent for doing >> this. I'm not aware of any problems caused by the existing name, and >> particularly in view of the current proposals I think the standard name >> guidelines document should be amended - I'm happy to come up with an >> alternative wording. >> >> On 17th January Heiko provided a list of 1086 isotope standard names. There >> then followed some discussion regarding how many names are needed for >> immediate use. Just to clarify, Heiko, are you still proposing all the names >> in your original list? I don't foresee any major technical problems with >> handling this number of names - it should be possible to do a bulk upload >> to create the individual entries in my vocabulary editor. >> >> Best wishes, >> Alison >> _______________________________________________ >> CF-metadata mailing list >> CF-metadata@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@cgd.ucar.edu http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
