Thu 15 Sep 2005
(wahoo, my first attempt at blogging!)
mini “dictionary” for blog:
attribute - word used to describe a measurement for the Ecological Metadata Language. ex. temperature and chlorophyll-a are attributes (disclaimer: future naming conventions may change the way ‘temperature’ and ‘chlorophyll-a’ are written/displayed)
unit - a measurement standard used by EML to describe attribute. ex. the attribute ‘depth’ might have units of ‘meters’
________ - word used to represent the attribute-unit pair
________ - word used to describe the type of measurement (SI page uses ‘quanitity’)
The SI standard (as maintained by the international BIPM) defines a limited number of units and the types of measurements they describe. In EML, these measurement quantities are called ‘unitType’s. The unitTypes are the links between the units and the attributes.
Example: Temperature is a unitType as well as an EML attribute, the three units that describe this quanitity are Celsius, Kelvin and Fahrenheit. Length is a unitType with many describing units, including meter, foot, fathom, etc. Many attributes are quantities of length, including swell height, depth, and distance. All length attributes will be measured with one of the units under the unitType length.
The parentSI is the organization-prescribed main unit for each unitType. All units of each unitType must be mathematically related to the parentSI unit, and thus indirectly related to all other units of the same type.
Example: The three units under unitType temperature are Celsius, Kelvin and Fahrenheit, the parentSI unit is Kelvin, so the other two are defined by their mathematical relation to Kelvin. The parentSI unit of length is the meter, all other units of unitType length are defined by their relationship to the meter.
The reason for the parentSI units is a fundamental one: With physical standards behind each parentSI unit, thus measurements are able to be definitively reproduced, and that reproducability is the key to the scientific method. There is a physical object that defines a meter and that single object is what is used to create instruments of measurement. Similarly, there is a weight kept in a secure place that is THE kilogram. Since these physical standards are confined to the limited set of units, all other units must inherently relate back to the physically defined, hence using the parentSI as a means of conversion rather than another more indirect method.
SO, to define a unit, we need: unitName, unitType, and a multiplier or constant to SI. Abbereviations and descriptions also come in handy on a user level though are not necessary to the definition/conversion process.
5 Responses to “attribute and unit relationships”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


September 15th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Excellent,
Thanks for posting Lynn.
Note: I changed the category from Uncategorized to Data/Metadata.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Two questions then: Do we assume that unit names and attribute names are unique? If unit names have an associated unit type and a multiplier, would an attribute-unit pair be uniquely defined by an “attribute list” with the following: attribute name, attribute medium, attribute default value (?), unit name?
September 16th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
we CAN assume unit names are unique, i do NOT think we can assume attribute names are unique. since attributes do not have the same (fairly rigid) system of physical standards, and since i do not know of an accepted attribute-naming standard (nor do jen and jerry if i understood our conversation after the meeting yesterday correctly), our attribute names need to be defined locally. at this point we do not have unique attribute names locally, though i figure this is what melissa and i will be working on come next week.
karen: i am not sure what you mean by attribute default value?
i think the necessary elements of the attribute-unit pair definition depend on what we are going to use the pair for… and after thinking about how to define things, i am not quite as sure about the usage of the pair (as part of a data dictionary??) as i previously thought. an attribute individually needs to be defined as it is in EML, with information about what is being measured (label and description), about the history of the value (calculation information), about the way it was collected (unit and precision info), how it can be read by machines and humans (number type, storage type, formatting info, code definitions, missing value info), and how it can be used (measurement scale).
in terms of the pairing though, i am having trouble determining the usage (who will be looking at this, humans? programs? database?) where it will be used (catalog? in report to LNO?) and for what purpose (searches? getting an estimate of how much data we have?).
September 16th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
I would assume that both attribute names and unit names are NOT UNIQUE.
I agree with Lynn about attributes. It’s not in our court to define a standard, let alone find an accepted attribute-naming standard. As with units, take the case of ‘minute’ and ’second’. These names are used for both time and distance, and thus would require individual entries in the database for each different unitType.
September 16th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
in trying to decide how to reply to shaun, this website came up:
http://mcmcweb.er.usgs.gov/sdts/SDTS_standard_oct91/part1.html#p4135
it is the USGS page defining their standards, formats, etc. they discuss lat/lon in earlier sections, but also go into detail about attributes (referencing ‘Data Dictionaries’ even in section 4.1.3.6.2). it looks like they seperate the common and unique parts of the attribute definition into seperate tables. i will try to summarize here later.