Data formats and standards for opportunistic rainfall sensors

Opportunistic sensors are increasingly used for rainfall measurement. However, their raw data are collected by a variety of systems that are often not primarily intended for rainfall monitoring, resulting in a plethora of different data formats and a lack of common standards. This hinders the sharing of opportunistic sensing (OS) data, their automated processing, and, at the end, their practical usage and integration into standard observation systems. This paper summarises the experiences of the more than 100 members of the OpenSense Cost Action involved in the OS of rainfall. We review the current practice of collecting and storing precipitation OS data and corresponding metadata, and propose new common guidelines describing the requirements on data and metadata collection, harmonising naming conventions, and defining human-readable and machine readable file formats for data and metadata storage. We focus on three sensors identified by the OpenSense community as prominent representatives of the OS of precipitation: Commercial microwave links (CML): fixed point-to-point radio links mainly used as backhauling connections in telecommunication networks Satellite microwave links (SML): radio links between geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) satellites and ground user terminals. Personal weather stations (PWS): non-professional meteorological sensors owned by citizens. The conventions presented in this paper are primarily designed for storing, handling, and sharing historical time series and do not consider specific requirements for using OS data in real time for operational purposes. The conventions are already now accepted by the ever growing OpenSense community and represent an important step towards automated processing of OS raw data and community development of joint OS software packages.

Consistency, Inconsistency, and Ambiguity of Metabolite Names in Biochemical Databases Used for Genome-Scale Metabolic Modelling

Genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) are manually curated repositories describing the metabolic capabilities of an organism. GEMs have been successfully used in different research areas, ranging from systems medicine to biotechnology. However, the different naming conventions (namespaces) of databases used to build GEMs limit model reusability and prevent the integration of existing models. This problem is known in the GEM community, but its extent has not been analyzed in depth. In this study, we investigate the name ambiguity and the multiplicity of non-systematic identifiers and we highlight the (in)consistency in their use in 11 biochemical databases of biochemical reactions and the problems that arise when mapping between different namespaces and databases. We found that such inconsistencies can be as high as 83.1%, thus emphasizing the need for strategies to deal with these issues. Currently, manual verification of the mappings appears to be the only solution to remove inconsistencies when combining models. Finally, we discuss several possible approaches to facilitate (future) unambiguous mapping.

What's in a name? Let's keep asking

The names we call each other stir passions, as we see from two recent commentaries on naming in psychiatry. Pamela Hyde, Director of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency, urges us to use terms that recognize the many individualized paths to recovery people with mental illnesses follow. Fuller Torrey urges us to call people with schizophrenia "patients." This commentary suggests that, by respecting the preferences of those being named, clinicians may enhance engagement in treatment and demonstrate respect for people as individuals beyond the label of a disease.