[Seavox] To business....

[Karen Stocks]

Hi Roy,
 
Yep, I see the need to have a hard boundary in the depths zones, even though this might not match real world messiness.  That makes sense to me.  I'm still a little uncomfortable with the boundary layers being defined as a % of the water column, since this can be hard info to produce if the total water column depth was not collected.  Seems like a hard number for those (as is done for the deep sea boundary layer definitions), instead of a ratio, might be easier. 
 
Cheers,
 
-Karen
 
 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Karen I. Stocks, PhD
Assistant Research Scientist,
San Diego Supercomputer Center
9500 Gilman Drive
La Jolla, CA  92093-0505
USA
Tel: +1 858 534-5009
Fax: +1 858 822-3610
kstocks at sdsc.edu

________________________________

From: seavox-bounces at biwebs1.nerc-liv.ac.uk on behalf of Roy Lowry
Sent: Wed 11/1/2006 5:46 AM
To: seavox at biwebs1-2.nerc-liv.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Seavox] To business....



John/Karen,

What I'm trying to do with the definitions is to try and lead hard data (ie actual measurement depths) to term conversions towards consistency.  How about if I use a scientific definition and then give the associated physical distance specification as a 'guideline'.  I'm guessing Bryan's proposed 'pattern' for the atmospheric domain might be along these lines.  Would you be happy with that?

I have involved some ocean scientists at POL and NOCS plus Bryan and other atmospheric scientists at RAL in the initial discussions on this vocabulary, but will test out the result on a few more.

Cheers, Roy.

>>> John Graybeal <graybeal at mbari.org> 10/31/06 4:31 AM >>>
Some points:

- Is it of any concern that Wikipedia cites differing opinions about the names of deeper zones?  (Ignoring the obvious possibility that Wikipedia is wrong, it seems likely that some might disagree -- any concern about that?)
- Wikipedia spells it hadopelagic.  Probably some American thing.
- The lack of "about" in the definitions, as in "about 1000 meters", concerned me -- Wikipedia rings more true in that respect, though still with flaws. I guess the application of the definition is all in how the keywords will be used, and why I have such trouble with keywords in the first place. So take it for what it's worth.
- I agree with Karen's comments on water column boundary layer.

Any reason we shouldn't run these by a bunch of non-data-centric scientists?  They should all agree too, right?

I thought the ASLO vocabulary had some overlapping terms, the benthic boundary layer in particular...?

John

At 10:00 AM +0000 10/30/06, Roy Lowry wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>Please find attached a vocabulary developed from one of the EDIOS local vocabularies to provide terms for describing dataset vertical coverages in discovery metadata.  I would foresee these terms being used as ISO19115 keywords.  Please let me have any comments on content, terms or definitions.  I would also be interested if anyone knows of other vocabularies out there fulfilling this function so I can check them out for ease of interoperability.
>
>Cheers, Roy.
>
>
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:SeaDataNet_Vocab_L131.xls (XLS4/«IC») (0116226F)
>_______________________________________________
>Seavox mailing list
>Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
>http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/seavox


--
----------
John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal at mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Initiative: http://marinemetadata.org <http://marinemetadata.org/>    ||  Shore Side Data System: http://www.mbari.org/ssds


_______________________________________________
Seavox mailing list
Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/seavox


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/pipermail/seavox/attachments/20061101/415d5b50/attachment.html