ET ACDM input for development of WIS2 topic hierarchy - wmo-im/et-acdm GitHub Wiki
According to https://github.com/wmo-im/wis2-topic-hierarchy,
Domain-specific topic subcategory levels (level 9 and beyond): topic structure proposed by domain experts and user communities. Note that the number of levels in this part may vary according to the requirements of various domains.
Currently, level 9 for atmospheric composition contains 4 elements. ET-ACDM is not sure that these entries make the most sense. Observations should first be classified by types of variables before they are classified according to source of the observation. The classification used by GAW provides some guidance. So, the following is suggested:
level 9
- observations
- analysis-prediction [to be further discussed]
- advisories-warnings [to be further discussed]
level 9:observations should have children (level 10)
- greenhouse gases
- aerosols
- reactive gases
- total atmospheric deposition
- ozone & UV radiation
Tom K Note: we should update AC level 9 and below as we wish.
Issues:
Discussion and Suggestions
Alex V Note: I would like to propose the following Level 10 children for level 9:observations:
- atmospheric constituents (breaking down in gases and aerosol particles, either troposphere or stratosphere, including stable isotope ratios, O2/N2, COS etc)
- vertical exchange of surface fluxes (including atmospheric deposition, but can be also O3, NO2, CO2, CH4 etc fluxes, from land or water surfaces)
- energy fluxes to/from the surface (including UV, Short/Longwave incoming and outgoing etc, Sensible heat and latent heat, soil heat flux, SIF)
Judd W Note:
- Alex, are you suggesting that there be a Level 11 for atmos constituents? With a listing like what is currently shown above for Level 10? I guess that could work, but I'm not sure how onerous WIS would be with a deep number of levels. I prefer the original proposal of Level 10 above, or at least a level configuration that allows logical search for users and connection back to the SAG structure.
- Alot of work has already been done with WIGOS metadata descriptions and codification for atmos composition. At least for aerosols, we just recently went through a large scale effort of updating the code lists etc.. So I hope that such work migrates in some way to WIS2 Level 10 (or 11) hierarchies. Perhaps some other topic areas need updating before consideration for WIS2? But at least for aerosols I think we are in a good situation (to focus on good vs perfect as Jorg said).
- As with the WIGOS vocabulary team, the WIS2 structure orphans important atmos comp variables such as cloud properties and boundary layer. Are those to be captured with other hierarchies? or should we include them here? Alot of the work was also done recently in WIGOS, so migration/porting to WIS2 should be considered. Just not sure where.
Markus F note:
- Agree that the current proposal for level 9 entries for atmospheric composition doesn't make much sense. It mixes platform type and data source. Mixing types of information in one field should be avoided.
- It is good practice to provide definitions for vocabulary concepts, also for observations, analysis-prediction, advisories-warnings. Does analysis-prediction include model output? Does it include retrieval output? If so, we would use data source as sorting criterium, which would make sense. Do advisories-warnings produce data? I always thought these were text messages.
- The current proposal for level 10, greenhouse gases, aerosols, reactive gases, total atmospheric deposition, ozone & UV radiation, reflects the structure of GAW, not the inner logic of observations in atmospheric composition, which is unfortunate. Why is ozone separate from reactive gases? Why is the gas phase separated into 2 parts, but not atmospheric composition? I would rather go for matrix as sorting criterion: aerosol particle phase, cloud phase, gas phase .