[Seavox] Devices: a new vocabulary for SeaVoX

[Lowry, Roy K]

Hi Nan,

Answer to your first question is you can either send to SeaVoX directly or you can use me as a pre-moderator to discuss things 1-to-1 first and then I'll put it to the list.  Whichever you prefer. Note that at the moment there's only me doing the work, but I hope to have some help in the not too distant future.

Your second question is also quite easily answered.  If it's something that has generated data then it needs to be included in that data's metadata and so needs to be in the vocabulary.  There's already a couple of pretty esoteric things in there like the University of Liverpool voltammetry instruments that will never appear commercially.

Question 3 is also straightforward.  Basically, if there's a user need for a level of resolution (low or high) then that should be implemented. It's possible to have three entries for each SBE 37 option: one with pressure, one without pressure and one where we don't know whether pressure was fitted or not.  The codes I've set up so far correspond to option 3, which is the most likely scenario for us because we only see the data streams plus a cruise report.  However, I can appreciate that somebody trying to tag an instrument catalogue or who, like you, is intimately involved with the mooring deployment might want to be absolutely specific.  Alternatives can co-exist and be interlinked by mappings.

Length of vocabulary doesn't worry me.  We're almost at 25,000 terms with P011 and coping. I doubt if L221 will ever get more than around 5,000.  The individual instrument entries are mapped to a classification, so navigation becomes manageable.

Cheers, Roy.



-----Original Message-----
From: Nan Galbraith [mailto:ngalbraith at whoi.edu] 
Sent: 29 September 2010 15:43
To: Lowry, Roy K; seavox at biwebs1-2.nerc-liv.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Seavox] Devices: a new vocabulary for SeaVoX

  Hi, Roy -

Can you tell me if there's a document describing how to add to
this (or any SeaVoX) vocabulary? Is it just a matter of sending
a proposal via email to the SeaVoX list?

We could really use this list in our instrument database, however
we've got a few items that are not yet listed - the RBR TR-1060,
for example.

Second, is there some threshold for determining if a sensor should
be added? We have a number of instruments that are used mainly
here at WHOI, with a smattering of them also on ships and on some
JAMSTEC and US-NDBC buoys. I'm not sure if there's a concern
about proliferation of records in this vocabulary, if somewhat "custom"
instruments are added. There are about 10 types of devices in
this system, and maybe only 25 or 30 of each in use. Does that meet
the threshold for being a useful addition, or are these too esoteric?

One last question. For many of the Sea-Bird SBE 37 series of
instruments, there's an optional pressure sensor. Would it be
appropriate to have separate entries for these? As far as I know,
the pressure sensor is added in the factory, and isn't swapped
in and out randomly, so an instance of e.g. an SBE 37-IM is either
pressure-enabled or not. Having this distinction in the record could
be a useful option for some applications, but would naturally make
the list longer.

Thanks very much -
Nan

> Dear All,
> SeaVoX traffic resembles buses. Nothing for ages then two messages 
> come together!
> There has been a project in BODC over the past couple of years to tag 
> data with more detailed device metadata, using actual instrument names 
> rather than instrument categories to populate 'data production tool' 
> fields in metadata. Thus 'Aanderaa RCM4/5' is now used instead of 
> 'Savonious rotor current meter'. When I looked at the metadatabase we 
> were building to support this it became apparent that it fitted very 
> comfortably into the vocabulary data model and that the concepts in it 
> could be mapped to the 'SeaDataNet device categories' (the L05x group 
> of lists) to form quite a handy thesaurus, which I have exposed 
> through the NERC Vocabulary Server as 
> _http://vocab.ndg.__nerc.ac.uk/list/L221_ 
> <http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/list/L221>
> In parallel, the IODE GE-BiCh expert group - largely the work of Mary 
> Kennedy - has compiled a comprehensive list of nets and plankton 
> samplers that would fit neatly together with the BODC list. Mary and 
> Hernan Garcia of USNODC have also recently been working on compiling a 
> catalogue of water samplers, which could be included.
> So, my proposal is that the L221 vocabulary be transferred from BODC 
> to SeaVoX governance, merged with the GE-BiCh contributions and 
> further developed as a joint effort by SeaVoX. Is this an acceptable 
> proposition?
> Cheers, Roy.

-- 
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith                        (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group            Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543                                *
*******************************************************




-- 
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.