Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Marine Sediment Working Group"

From Linked Earth Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Foram geochemistry standards -- ~~~~: new section)
 
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
OK, I hope I'm doing this right. Somehow I find the wiki thing not very intuitive and I'm too lazy to find out how it really works...
 
OK, I hope I'm doing this right. Somehow I find the wiki thing not very intuitive and I'm too lazy to find out how it really works...
  
Here's what I use for my own project. Since I'm working with legacy datasets there are only a few things that I consider essential (indicated with (E)), but I think we should push to make the remaining metadata fields at least recommended:<br />
+
Here's what I use for my own project; I don't distinguish between stable isotopes, Mg/Ca and trace elements when it comes to metadata. Since I'm working with legacy datasets there are only a few things that I consider essential (indicated with (E)), but I think we should push to make the remaining metadata fields at least recommended:<br />
  
 
Parameter (E)<br />
 
Parameter (E)<br />
Line 26: Line 26:
  
 
For trace elements cleaning method would be a good one to include.
 
For trace elements cleaning method would be a good one to include.
 +
 +
==  -- [[User:Andreasschmittner|Andreasschmittner]] ([[User talk:Andreasschmittner|talk]]) 13:43, 26 October 2017 (PDT) ==
 +
 +
I wonder if we need a standard for core names.
 +
 +
With regard to depths reporting I would argue that having depth_top and depth_bottom precisely defines the interval and if only the mean depth is known one can indicate that by having the same value in both depth_top and depth_bottom.

Latest revision as of 20:44, 26 October 2017

Foram geochemistry standards -- Lukas (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2016 (PST)

OK, I hope I'm doing this right. Somehow I find the wiki thing not very intuitive and I'm too lazy to find out how it really works...

Here's what I use for my own project; I don't distinguish between stable isotopes, Mg/Ca and trace elements when it comes to metadata. Since I'm working with legacy datasets there are only a few things that I consider essential (indicated with (E)), but I think we should push to make the remaining metadata fields at least recommended:

Parameter (E)
Parameter.type (E): measured or inferred
Parameter.unit (E)
Parameter.analytical.error: based on repeat measurement of standard, 1SD
Parameter.reproducibility: based on repeat measurement of sample, 1SD
Instrument
Laboratory
Species (E): in case of foraminifera
Nshells.measured: number of shells used
Size.fraction: size fraction of foraminifera shells
Notes
Habitat.Season: from paper
Habitat.Depth: from paper. add epifaunal, infaunal for benthics
Equilibrium.offset: from paper
Calibration.eq: for inferred parameters
Calibration.uncertainty
Calibration.DOI
Publication.DOI: publication(s) where data were reported
Data.source (E): to allow tracing of legacy data, either DOI, link or ...

For trace elements cleaning method would be a good one to include.

-- Andreasschmittner (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2017 (PDT)

I wonder if we need a standard for core names.

With regard to depths reporting I would argue that having depth_top and depth_bottom precisely defines the interval and if only the mean depth is known one can indicate that by having the same value in both depth_top and depth_bottom.