[Seavox] A question of principle on instruments

[Lowry, Roy K.]

Thanks Greg,

There seems to be some support for my reservations about using L22 in this way. I'd already thought of using C3 as a way out of the current difficulties for SeaDataNet. Do you know of any way to address the C3 entries as a URL? If not I could consider serving it to provide this capability.

Cheers, Roy.

________________________________
From: Greg Reed [greg at metoc.gov.au]
Sent: 11 November 2013 05:27
To: Lowry, Roy K.; seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Seavox] A question of principle on instruments

Roy

I would steer clear of differentiating probes based on fall-rate equations.

XBT biases are a function of the year of manufacture and this would require duplicate entries for some probes with the different fall-rate coefficients. The user would then need to know which coefficients applied to a given instrument.

One option would be to add a note in the definition section of L22 to refer to WMO common Code table C3 which lists fall rate equation coefficients for profile measurement instruments.

regards, Greg


From: Lowry, Roy K. <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>>
Date: 9 November 2013 02:38
Subject: [Seavox] A question of principle on instruments
To: "seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk<mailto:seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk>" <seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk<mailto:seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk>>


Dear All,

An issue is arising with a request to add a set of additional XBT entries to the SeaVoX instrument vocabulary (L22).  In most cases, this includes two entries for certain physical types of XBT (e.g. Sippican T5) with the entries differentiated by the fall-rate equation applied (Sippican or GOOS). I'm a little uneasy about this as to me it could be viewed as shoe-horning information that isn't actually instrument type into the instrument description. However, I am also aware of instruments that have multiple designations and all that's different between the variants is the firmware.

Anybody else have any views on this?

Cheers, Roy.

Please note that I now work part-time from Tuesday to Thursday.  E-mail response on other days is possible but not guaranteed!



  ________________________________
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.

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



________________________________
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.nerc-liv.ac.uk/pipermail/seavox/attachments/20131111/6c502126/attachment-0001.html