[CF-metadata] Standard Names Representing Measurements not due to some process

Andrew Barna abarna at ucsd.edu
Mon Apr 3 16:41:10 MDT 2017


The *_due_to_dissolved_and_particulate_material version does match with the given name guidelines but it seems to make assumptions about the processes involved.
I would prefer the "corrected_for_pure_water_attenuance" version unless the definition essentially defines "dissolved and particulate material" as being anything except pure water, I can try to write/modify the existing definition to match this intent. This is my first go at trying to contribute a standard name, as such, apologies for my uncertainty.


On Mar 31, 2017, at 05:55, Lowry, Roy K. <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>> wrote:

Dear Andrew,

It's somewhat difficult to be elegant here, but here are some suggestions:


The latter would be my personal preference. Some explanation would be needed in the definition.

Cheers, Roy.

Please note that I partially retired on 01/11/2015. I am now only working 7.5 hours a week and can only guarantee e-mail response on Wednesdays, my day in the office. All vocabulary queries should be sent to enquiries at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:enquiries at bodc.ac.uk>. Please also use this e-mail if your requirement is urgent.

From: CF-metadata <cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu>> on behalf of Andrew Barna <abarna at ucsd.edu<mailto:abarna at ucsd.edu>>
Sent: 30 March 2017 20:02
To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
Subject: [CF-metadata] Standard Names Representing Measurements not due to some process


I was having a discussion regarding rosette mounted transmissometers, specifically the Wetlabs C-Star.

The most obvious standard name for the measurement appears to be:

However, because of the way the instrument is calibrated, the attenuation due to the (pure) water itself is not a constituent of the reported attenuation coefficient.
The resulting modification would appear to be:
volume_beam_attenuation_coefficient_of_radiative_flux_in_sea_water_not_due_to_water (or some variant, _not_due_to_pure_water)

Is there a better way to account for reporting parameters which are the result of all processes except for some known process?

CF-metadata mailing list
CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu<mailto:CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu>
CF-metadata Info Page - mailman.cgd.ucar.edu Mailing Lists<http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata>
This is an unmoderated list for discussions about interpretation, clarification, and proposals for extensions or change to the CF conventions.

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20170403/91111d89/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CF-metadata mailing list