I think OBIS node managers could be directed directly to https://github.com/nvs-vocabs/L22/issues. OBIS guidelines for requesting L22 codes should state that the codes requested should be as generic as possible. For example:

URI http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/TOOL0978/ Preferred label (en) Apstein-style ring net Definition (en) Plankton net described as Apstein-style ring net based on Apstein (1896); a small ring net designed with single circular mouth piece with optional reducing cone; with conical filtering net shape; and equipped with optional closing mechanism.

should be preferred over:

URI http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/NETT0003/ Preferred label (en) Apstein net as described by Apstein (1896); Dakin (1908) Definition (en) Plankton net described as the Apstein net (Apstein 1896; Dakin 1908) [Wiebe & Benfield (2003)]; designed with single circular mouth piece with reducing cone; with measurements:opening diameter (metre)=0.14, non-filtering cone mouth piece length (metre)=0.2, net mouth diameter (metre)=0.4; with opening area (square metre)=0.0154; with total filtering net length (metre)=1; with filtering net shape conical; with additional features: not specified; with mesh size (millimetre)=0.076 (No. 20 silk); and equipped with optional closing mouth mechanism.

Because:

The generic definition requires us registering less codes (otherwise we will need e.g. a different code for each mesh size of the), and it will be easier for managers to find right code.
If you want create a filter to provide all data from Apstein nets, it's just easier if there is just a single code for all variations of Apstein nets.
We can use the generic definition combined with http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/Q01/current/ descriptors in the data file so that there is no loss of information.
Registering codes is still tedious and managers will be tempted to use a code which resembles what they need, but isn't exactly the same. That could lead to confusion as the L22 definition might e.g. mention a different mesh size than the Q01 in the data file.

@Daphnisd; I can see your point but you do risk dumbing down important information when it is available. For example when the gear is a well identified gear with known characteristics and used as a de facto standard within an organisation or a project. See for example the plankton sampling gears we set up for the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/B75/current/ORG0015/).

To give a bit of background, many of the plankton sampling in L22 came from a review paper by Peter Wiebe (http://www.acoustics.washington.edu/fis437/resources/Week%206/Wiebe&Benfield.pdf). This is why the descriptions are so specific because they refer to the original characteristics of the gear as described in the original published version of the gear. At the time we did not have any stable descriptions of plankton sampling gears and we decided to use the Wiebe and Benfield paper as a starting reference.

In my view sampling gears such as plankton sampling gears fall into 3 categories:

1 Gears that fit exactly the specification as first published (i.e. as described in the e.g. Wiebe's paper or in the publication of the original standard)

example: http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/NETT0168/ They will rarely be used to tag datasets but they should be kept in the L22 gear registry as a reference.

2 Gears that are identified with the same name as the reference gear and that can either be traced back to a manufacturer and a specification where their essential characteristics are captured;

example: http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/TOOL0982/ or http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/NETT0174/; (in these cases you can see that there is a link between the L22 record and the manufacturer's identifier in the B75 collection);

or gear that is an accepted modern version of the original standard: example: http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/TOOL0979/

3 Gears that are identified using the same name as the reference but there is no confidence that the gear design had the specification of the original gear or the gear instance cannot be related back to a manufacturer's identifier (research lab or commercial) and gear description.

example: http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/TOOL0980/

To help OBIS node managers I think that instead of telling them to use the most generic codes, we could look at creating a "view" on L22 (by setting up a scheme like in http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/scheme/) to group modern gears or gears that are used regularly by OBIS data providers or considered important to tag accurately?

I don't understand what important information we would be missing in OBIS if we do (we may need additional Q01 concepts to allow for this):

Sampling instrument: WP-2-style net http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/TOOL0980/ Sampling device aperture diameter: 0.57 m Sampling device aperture surface area: 0.25m2 total filtering net length: 2.61m ratio of mesh aperture to mouth area: 6:1 Sampling net mesh size: 0.2mm

Compared to using: http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/TOOL0979/, "which does say sizes may vary" which makes it generic enough. Maybe we loose info compared to http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/NETT0168/? Is it important to say it's the original standard? I don't know. (For TOOL0982 and NETT0174/ I would still suggest registering different concepts as they don't seem like regular WP2's).

I was also suggesting this with the idea that it might at some point be useful to have a filter on sampling devise and I don't see any linking between the concepts. In such a filter I would group these 3 concepts together as WP2 net: TOOL0980, TOOL0979, NETT0168.

Anyway, from an integration perspective I think we should be prepared to loose some detail. Also keep in mind that usually all we have is: sampling was done with a "WP2 net". If we're lucky the dimensions are mentioned (but not whether it's adapted or the official one). Mapping this with http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/TOOL0979/ and especially http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/NETT0168/ would be an interpretation, it might be possible if the researcher confirms, but if not I would be more comfortable using http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/L22/current/TOOL0980/.

iobis / vocab

Guidelines new instrument requests #11

1 Gears that fit exactly the specification as first published (i.e. as described in the e.g. Wiebe's paper or in the publication of the original standard)

2 Gears that are identified with the same name as the reference gear and that can either be traced back to a manufacturer and a specification where their essential characteristics are captured;

3 Gears that are identified using the same name as the reference but there is no confidence that the gear design had the specification of the original gear or the gear instance cannot be related back to a manufacturer's identifier (research lab or commercial) and gear description.