-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Standard names: Nansen Legacy Project 01 #128
Comments
Dear Luke, I appreciate that you have a long list of parameters, but could you please include the text in GitHub rather than an external document. I found the way HOTS presented their requests such as #169 made the review process manageable. It would also be helpful if you could check the pending Standard Names in the editor https://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1?status=active&namefilter=&proposerfilter=&descfilter=&filter+and+display=filter to make sure that none of the names in your list are currently under discussion. I have eyeballed your spreadsheet and most look straightforward. One thing I noticed is that you have used the spelling 'sulphur' but this should be 'sulfur' for CF. Cheers, Roy. |
No problem, I will do that. |
Proposer's names:
Reviewer's and contributor's names:
Date: 2022-04-04 Notes: I work as a data manager on a large multidisciplinary marine research research project, the Nansen Legacy project (https://arvenetternansen.com/). We investigate the role that climate change is having on the Northern Barents Sea, one of the fastest warmest regions on the planet. We investigate wide range of parameters. I have asked researchers in the project to look through the existing CF standard names and see if any additions are required for their work. Collectively, we would like to propose the CF standard names listed below. I have checked through the existing set of standard names and the currently proposed listed, and, to the best of my knowledge, there are no conflicts. Proposed names(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) |
Many thanks, |
Items 1-9 in this proposal are versions of existing standard names for silicon and carbon e.g. mole_concentration_of_particulate_matter_expressed_as_silicon_in_sea_water for the additional elements P, Ca, Fe, Mg, Na, K, Zn, S and Mn. |
Items 10 (mole_concentration_of_prokaryotes expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water) and 13 (mass_concentration_of_prokaryotes expressed_as_carbon_in_sea_water) are simple modifications of existing standard names for non-taxonomic organism groupings such as mole_concentration_of_mesozooplankton_expressed_as_nitrogen_in_sea_water. |
Dear Luke et al. These proposed names follow existing patterns and therefore look fine to me, but I am not an expert on this subject. Thanks Jonathan |
Dear Jonathan, Most do, but a couple require a little more thought. Watch this space. Cheers, Roy. |
Item 11 mole_productivity_of_biomass_expressed_as_carbon_by_prokaryotes Convention in existing Standard Names is 'production' for biomass created per unit per unit volume Production/productivity have been qualified as 'primary' to indicate biomass creation from inorganic precursors. Could you confirm that these Standard Names are for total production and not the more usual primary production? Once this is answered I will propose alternative terms and definitions for these items. |
I have something in my memory about a previous discussion concerning sediment age before present, but can't remember if it was in the domain of CF or NVS. I've tried to find reference to it in the CF GitHub repository but without success. Does anybody else remember it or have better GitHub searching skills than me? If so, please give me a heads up. |
I will contact Gunnar about these terms. |
Yes I confirm that these Standard Names are for total production and not primary production as the biomass creation is based on (dissolved) organic material and not inorganic precursors. |
Here is my modified version of items 11 and 12: Term: gross_mole_production_of_biomass_expressed_as_carbon_by_prokaryotes_in_sea_water Description: "gross_mole_production" means the rate of creation of biomass per unit volume with no correction for respiration loss in terms of quantity of matter (moles). The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A, in this case carbon. 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. "Prokaryotes” are all Bacteria and Archaea excluding photosynthetic cyanobacteria such as Synechococcus and Prochlorococcus or other separately named components of the procaryotic population. Unit: [mol m-3 s-1] Term: gross_production_of_biomass_expressed_as_carbon_by_prokaryotes_in_sea_water Description: "gross_production" means the rate of creation of biomass per unit volume with no correction for respiration. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A, in this case carbon. 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. "Prokaryotes” are all Bacteria and Archaea excluding photosynthetic cyanobacteria such as Synechococcus and Prochlorococcus or other separately named components of the procaryotic population. Unit: [kg m-3 s-1] @bratbak and @lhmarsden Do you have any issues with these? Anybody else have any comments? |
I am fine with these
Best
gunnar
From: Roy Lowry ***@***.***>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 4:50 PM
To: cf-convention/discuss ***@***.***>
Cc: Gunnar Bratbak ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [cf-convention/discuss] Standard names: Nansen Legacy Project 01 (Issue cf-convention/vocabularies#128)
Here is my modified version of items 11 and 12:
Term: gross_mole_production_of_biomass_expressed_as_carbon_by_prokaryotes_in_sea_water
Description: "gross_mole_production" means the rate of creation of biomass per unit volume with no correction for respiration loss in terms of quantity of matter (moles). The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A, in this case carbon. 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. "Prokaryotes” are all Bacteria and Archaea excluding photosynthetic cyanobacteria such as Synechococcus and Prochlorococcus or other separately named components of the procaryotic population.
Unit: [mol m-3 s-1]
Term: gross_production_of_biomass_expressed_as_carbon_by_prokaryotes_in_sea_water
Description: "gross_production" means the rate of creation of biomass per unit volume with no correction for respiration. The phrase "expressed_as" is used in the construction A_expressed_as_B, where B is a chemical constituent of A, in this case carbon. 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. "Prokaryotes” are all Bacteria and Archaea excluding photosynthetic cyanobacteria such as Synechococcus and Prochlorococcus or other separately named components of the procaryotic population.
Unit: [kg m-3 s-1]
@bratbak<https://github.com/bratbak> and @lhmarsden<https://github.com/lhmarsden> Do you have any issues with these? Anybody else have ant comments?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#128>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AYTJGPRSZCKU347I7MZTJJLVEBBP3ANCNFSM5SPAY5TA>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>
|
If they're fine with Gunnar they're fine with me. |
Item 17 (mass_concentration_of_phaeopigments_in_sea_water) now exists. Created on 18th March 2022. Items 16 and 18: These look fine to me. Although there is a precedent of sea_ice_mass_content_of_salt I think the parallel with names like mass_concentration_of_phaeopigments_in_sea_water is a much stronger phraseology precedent. |
I don't think my GitHub search skills are much good, but the term 'age before present' doesn't appear in any existing CF term, as far as I can see. Can this be rephrased somehow? Is it especially common to define 'Present' as 1950 AD ? Shouldn't that be done with a reference date instead, and maybe use time as a coordinate (or independent) variable? |
Hi Nan, 'before present' (BP) referencing 1950 AD may be new to CF, but it is a well-known gold standard convention in geochronology and archaeology. It has its origins in radiocarbon dating but has been adopted for all dating techniques. I feel this is a case where CF has to respect domain conventions. |
Item 15 (sea_water_speed_shear) follows the same phraseology structure as many precedents, such as sea_water_x_velocity and so looks a valid Standard Name. The only caveat is that speed shear, defined as the derivative of fluid speed with respect to depth is a new concept to me. My maths isn't even up to confirming that the canonical unit for the derivative of m s-1 with respect to m is s-1. Googling 'speed shear' leads to sites on the competitive removal of fleeces from sheep or 'shear velocity', which I think is different and so couldn't help me. |
This proposed standard name is very similar to the existing standard name, wind_speed_shear, and has been worded similarly. |
Many thanks Luke. I had missed that perfectly analogous precedent. So I am now perfectly happy with the proposal for sea_water_speed_shear. |
It looks like we have discussed all 18 now. Do you need anything more from me? Perhaps for 14? |
Item 14 age_of_sea_floor_sediment_before_present. I would suggest changing the phrasing to sea_floor_sediment_age_before_present to follow the precedent sea_floor_sediment_grain_size. Note that the canonical units should be seconds, not years. The canonical units describe the dimension of the measurement, in this case time. The scaled units - in this case years - go into the parameter attribute in the data file. |
That all sounds good to me @roy-lowry |
I agree with @roy-lowry that "before present" is standard terminology which means "before 1950", and it would be OK to use it in the standard name since it's explained in the definition. Still, following Nan @ngalbraith's comment, since this is a standard name and not everyone is aware of this term, would it be better instead to have I agree that the wind speed shear term is OK. |
During the geological phase of my career 'before present' was a part of my everyday language. However, I understand the desire to make Standard Names understandable across as many domains as possible. Consequently, I would - a little reluctantly - accept something like: @lhmarsden What do you and your colleagues think? |
As an ex-geoscientist myself, I share your reluctance, @roy-lowry, but also understand. I am happy with your suggestion. I guess someone searching for which standard name to use would search by 'sediment age' rather than 'before present' or 'before 1950' anyway... |
Thanks Luke. Some vocabulary search engines also scan the definition/description, which I phrased with being a search target in mind. |
I'm very happy with @roy-lowry's rephrasing of the descriptions on 11 and 12; I was concerned that the original descriptions included a phrase ("Production of carbon" ) that didn't exist in the proposed standard names themselves. This all looks much better to me now, thanks. |
Some really good discussion has taken place here so would be good to move this forward for agreement. We will need to summarise all the terms reflecting the changes in the discussion and then change that in the cfeditor. @japamment raising so we can both work through this one. |
This issue has had no activity in the last 30 days. This is a reminder to please comment on standard name requests to assist with agreement and acceptance. Standard name moderators are also reminded to review @feggleton @japamment |
Hi |
Hi @bratbak, I have now added these names to the editor and reflected all the changes via the discussion (bar the one name which already exists). You can see these in the editor https://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1. As discussion has come to an end and everyone is happy with these, if there are no further comments in the next 7 days, these can be accepted for the next update. |
Hi @feggleton, there is an oversight in the copying of the names, the proposed name reads: |
Great spot @tts041 Thank you for that! |
Hi @bratbak @lhmarsden @feggleton All the names in this issue will be included in V82 of the standard name table, currently in preparation. Best wishes Alison |
I am closing this issue as the names have been published in V82 of the standard name table. |
Before submitting an issue be sure you have read and understood the rules for vocabulary changes: http://cfconventions.org/standard_name_rules.html
Please note that it is fine to group together a number of proposals in a single GitHub issue (i.e. it is not necessary to open a separate issue for each vocabulary term). Change proposals should include the following information as applicable.
Proposer's name This information will be used to add entries to the vocabulary editor: http://cfeditor.ceda.ac.uk/proposals/1. If you prefer not to add your name, your github id will be used instead.
Date Also used in the vocabulary editor.
For each term please try to give the following:
- Term Proposed term to appear in the vocabulary
- Description A brief description to explain the meaning of the term
- Units (If applicable).
I have read and understood the above.
I work as a data manager on a large multidisciplinary marine research research project, the Nansen Legacy project (https://arvenetternansen.com/). We investigate the role that climate change is having on the Northern Barents Sea, one of the fastest warmest regions on the planet.
We investigate wide range of parameters. I have asked researchers in the project to look through the existing CF standard names and see if any additions are required for their work. Collectively, we would like to propose the CF standard names linked below:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13GTGCkXjFcFYBe_jhqkKJfIT1Ja95cAd/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109954185656296467293&rtpof=true&sd=true
The email address of the researcher who proposed each term is included, but please include me in any communication too (lukem@unis.no).
I have gone through and checked each list. I have removed terms that I believe are already covered by the existing standard names, and made some changes to the wording to be more infitting with the general style used for existing standard names.
Please let me know if you require any further information or clarifications. It is likely that I will propose more on behalf of the project at a later date, so please let me know if the way I am doing this is okay for you.
Thanks for the important work that you do!
Kind regards,
Luke
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: