Talk:Air Quality/Chemistry Naming Conventions
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
What links here: Air Quality/Chemistry Naming Conventions
|
I am in charge to organise the definition of new names for the CF convention, both as an outcome of our Ispra HTAP meeting as well as by the EU-project GEMS. Do you have any information on what the status of naming conventions for aerosol&chemicals is? I have recently sent an email to Jonathan Gregory and Bryan Lawrence (see below), but did receive a reponse yet. ChristianeTextor 19:26, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
- Thank you for your note on CF naming extensions. Your work will be a very important part of developing interoperability among projects, programs, agencies and countries. Given the formal consensus-based procedures and the broad acceptance of the CF conventions in the met/ocean communities, it is a very attractive model for creating an Air Chemistry extension to the existing Standard Names.
- In order to collect the information on this topic, we have set up this wiki page. It lists the standard air chemistry names in the CF convention (as of April 7, 2006). It is evident that the current list is very limited and it clearly requires expansion to accommodate the needs of this HTAP/GEMS project as well as the needs for other air quality/chemistry-related names.
- I do not have a direct interaction with the CF naming custodians, however I gather from the website that there is a particular e-mail address where naming requests are submitted. The wiki page on air quality/chemistry naming also contains links three additional standard name collections:
- EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
- Supersite Project Naming Standards
- PRISM Project Naming Standards
- I hope that this information will be of use. Clearly this is a major and thankless undertaking since it is so hard to do it "right" for every one's satisfaction. In order to distribute labor we have set up the above wiki pages where interested work group participants can enter links as well as descriptions through the open wiki process. If you would prefer to maintain such an interactive web page as part of your GEMS project we would be more than happy to make our contributions to those pages. Rhusar 19:30, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
- I think your idea with the wiki pages is great! For exchanging and establishing ideas on standards and tools for the intercomparison work in an interactive way. Thanks a lot for pointing us to this.
- At this point, in the beginning, it would be really important to choose a representative entry point. Which has some longer life time. which es even not linked too much to an infividual organisation. Otherwise a discussion on standards makes no sense. I think also GEMS is not the right thing, since it is a project and by definition will end in some years.
- So I have some questions ( also to the colleagues):
- 1. Is ESIP the right federation to keep this? (I have not heard of it before)Isnt that purely american?
- 2. Wouldn't it be better to have for example an IGAC administrated wiki page? I must admit that I find it nice to just start and may be we can copy everything to another place once we found it.
- 3. Who will be the administrator and can create new pages for example in your initial set-up?
- 4. Who can change to general outline of these pages? I think there is always too much meta communication on how to edit and who has edited and when etc on these wiki pages.
- 5. Is there and administrator at ESIP who would react within a day or two if we had small wishes? Michael Schulz (MichaelSchulz) 13:21, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
- 1. Location of the Workspace. I am in full agreement with all the key items you raised. Picking an agencey/nationally neutral work-space is vital for the 'political corecteness' of these efforts, like HTAP.
- 2. Longevity of the Workspace. Having a workspace for interoperability discussions and content management that has longevity beyond typical project lifetimes is indeed highly desireable.
