Suggestion, Standardizing the features name of the minimal metadata standards

Dear All,

I have a concern about the column name of the metadata.
I believe it would be better for the column name to be underlying a simple and predictable pattern.
for example, in sections "2.2 Amplicon sequencing." and "2.8 Metabolomics."
we have different patterns:

• sample_name: two sections, using a hyphen, using the complete world.
• seq_meth: two sections, using a hyphen, using abbreviation instead of complete words (seq instead of the sequence, meth instead of method).
• sequence_count_qual: three sections, using two hyphens, a mixture of complete and abbreviate (sequence and count are complete words, qual is abbreviation quality).
• LSU_recover: two sections, using a hyphen, the mixture of lower and upper case letters
• Sample species: two sections, using white space, camel case.
• Project title versus sample_name: both refer to identity, but the names include ambiguity.

In my mind, this naming can cause some mistakes automatically, So I suggest we use a predictable pattern for all names in all sections. Here is put some suggestions about naming.

• Using lowercase in all names: sample_scpecies instead of Sample species
• Using the full name instead of abbreviation: 'sequence_method' instead of seq_meth in all names
• Separating words: prevent different strategies for separating words, using hyphens instead of the dash and space.
• Using similar names for columns with the same nature: sample_identity and project_indentity instead of sample_name and project_title.

These notes are just suggestions, and we can discuss that to make a comprehensive standard for defining the name of features of the metadata.

Review the metadata naming in sections 2.2, “Amplicon sequencing,” and 2.8, “Metabolomics,” then inventory the differing column-name patterns described in the issue. The work is complete when a documented naming convention is agreed and applied consistently across the relevant sections.