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