[Seavox] A question of principle on instruments

[Greg Reed]

Hi Roy

I will check with WMO to find out and get back to you.

regards, Greg


On 11-Nov-13 19:08, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:
> 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/20131112/5632a42d/attachment.html