Talk:Air Quality/Chemistry Naming Conventions

From Federation of Earth Science Information Partners
Revision as of 12:59, May 23, 2006 by ERobinson (talk | contribs)
General discussion on Air Quality/Chemistry Naming Conventions. If needed, parctice editing in the Sandbox
  • To add to the discussion, log in to DataFed wiki
  • Begin each entry with ====Username: Subject====
  • To respond, add dots ====......Username: Subject====
  • Indent response text by adding : for each tab.
  • Sign your entry by ending with '~~~~',

BLawrence: CF Naming Extensions

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). ChristianeTextor 19:26, 10 May 2006 (EDT)

___FDetener: ACCENT Photocomp and O3 RF

I give you the link to the ACCENT Photocomp input/output requirements. Also have a look at the O3 RF. I guess we should discriminate between:
a) components (and derived components)
b) fluxes (e.g. O3 deposition, strat-trop, chemical production, chemical destruction)
c) state variables like temperature, pressure, (and derived) radiative forcing
d) model info lon-lat structure, etc. FrankDetener

___JGregory:Work by Peter van Velthoven

As regards the development of standard names for chemistry and aerosol, I would suggest that the work done by Peter van Velthoven for PRISM is a good starting point. A good deal of thought was invested in that. However, since not many chemical names have so far been added, as you remark, these guidelines are only proposals, not requirements. JonathanGregory

___RHusar: Additional Naming Information

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)

______MSchulz: Questions about the Wiki

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 is even not linked too much to an individual 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 the 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 an administrator at ESIP who would react within a day or two if we had small wishes? MichaelSchulz 13:21, 11 May 2006 (EDT)

_________RHusar: RE: Questions about the Wiki

1. This wiki is part of the Earth Science Information Partners Federation, ESIP wiki. We chose ESIP since it is a more neutral place then our DataFed Project wiki. My colleague, Stefan Falke, and I are facilitating the Air Quality Cluster within ESIP and we are using this ESIP wiki extensively. However, since ESIP is an American organization, this is not appropriate as a neutral long-term workspace.
We like the Mediawiki software which is the grand daddy of the wikies incl. Wikipedia. While it's syntax is a bit arcane, it stands out as a rich and extensible and fast-evolving open-source software.
2. IGAC or other international organizations would be much better as neutral and long term hosts for this kind of work. I am sure IGAC would be interested. Last year when I talked to Tim Bates on a similar topic he said that IGAC is interested in this sort of facilitation and he pointed me to Sandro Fuzzi as a further contact.
3. This wiki is fully open for input. Every article page and its associated discussion page can be edited by any participant, not just an administrator. The wiki keeps track and allows recalling all previous versions, accessible through 'History' button. So the issue with the wiki management is which modifications should be restricted to certain users/managers.
4. To change content, click on "create account or log in" in the upper right corner. To edit article and discussion pages click the edit tab. Practice editing in the Sandbox.
5. We the community are the administrators. Most of the time we spend "administering" the wiki consists of organizing content, laying out navigation, transferring e-mails to discussion threads. These "management" activities could and should be distributed among appropriate members of the community.Rhusar 18:12, 15 May 2006 (EDT)