proposed extra fields for WGMS glacier classifications in GLIMS database

[Jeffrey S Kargel]

Dear Bruce et al.,



|---------+----------------------------------------->
|         |           Bruce Raup <braup at nsidc.org>  |
|         |           Sent by:                      |
|         |           owner-glims_database at flagmail.|
|         |           wr.usgs.gov                   |
|         |                                         |
|         |                                         |
|         |           02/26/03 05:04 PM             |
|         |                                         |
|---------+----------------------------------------->
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                  |
  |       To:       GLIMS Database mailing list <glims_database at flagmail.wr.usgs.gov>                |
  |       cc:                                                                                        |
  |       Subject:  proposed extra fields for WGMS glacier classifications in GLIMS database         |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




>1.  Is it sufficient to add extra fields for just the three listed above?

I see that there is no place, other than in a comment, to indicate
something about debris cover.  Possibly in "longitudinal characteristics"
there could be an entry for "debris cover abundance," with possible valids
being nil (estimated <1% ice-free pixels below snowline, low (estimated
ice-free cover 1-10% of pixels below snowline), moderate (10-50% ice-free
pixels below snow line), heavy (50-100% ice-free pixels below snowline),
and thin (debris cover may be widespread but few pixels are ice-free below
the snowline-- there is dominantly subpixel mixing of debris and ice).
There could also be an indication of the qualitative "distribution of
debris," with up to 2 valids, including: medial moraines, patchy (as from
landslides for example, i.e., lacking medial moraine type structure),
terminus cover.

>2.  Is it sufficient to add only one extra field to each (so that a given
>glacier could have two "primary_classification"s at one point in time)?

For simplicity, I think 2 is enough.  There will be instances where people
really want more than 2, but I think those will be few.

I am replying to the whole list, since my suggestion under #1 may require
some broad discussion. I also think that before the final stamp of approval
is placed on the revised database structure and valids definition (but
after the DB WG has had their say in this new round of revision), perhaps
it should be opened to comment from the entire GLIMS group.  Judging from
the small response to some related emailings and solicitations of data,
there may need to be another hand-holding e-tutorial on how to access the
database structure and definitions, and how to input data, plus a pretty
stern resolicitation of data for the database.  People have simply got to
get into the database.  There may need to be a individualized
communications with some RCs, and I would be happy to do my part in that if
needed.

--Jeff K