[Esip-documentation] ACDD questions

Ted Habermann thabermann at hdfgroup.org
Sat Apr 27 13:37:01 EDT 2013 

Hello all,

The suggestion to add an attribute called rolecode_vocabulary demonstrates very well the problem with this approach - a community has a documentation need and, in order to address that need, we need to add a new concept into the convention. Do we end up with a *_vocabulary attribute for every attribute that can benefit from a shared vocabulary? I think this would be difficult to maintain.

As an alternative, we create a responsibleParty type group that includes a role from a shared vocabulary and information that describes people or organizations. The role has a value and a source which is the shared vocabulary that it comes from. 

Are we a community of convention users or convention developers? When we say we need a mechanism for describing responsibleParties that includes a role from a shared vocabulary and descriptive information, we are convention developers. When we say we need a vocabulary to describe roles like principleInvenstigator or instrumentDeveloper, we are acting as a community using a convention. 

What I am trying to do is separate these two roles so that when a community says "we need a shared vocabulary for x", we do not have to add a new attribute called x_vocabulary to the convention.

Ted


==== Ted Habermann ===========================
   Director of Earth Science, The HDF Group
   New phone#: (217) 531-4202
   New email: thabermann at hdfgroup.org
==== thabermann at hdfgroup.org ==================

On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu> wrote:

> 
> I think we can use terms from a CV, but they should be meaningful,
> not URLs or those lovely 5 character codes that hark back to languages
> we've forgotten we ever knew.
> 
> We can select one CV, or we can add a term 'rolecode_vocabulary' (that
> would be fairly reasonable, since we're already using 'keyword_vocabulary').
> 
> The SDN roles below are new, but the ISO roles are from a slightly outdated
> page at NODC. I just find this format easier to look at than the full xml and
> csv formats that are available on line.
> 
> Personally, neither of these is very appealing - I hope the new ISO codes
> will be better.
> 
> - Nan
> 
> 
> SDN roles:
> metadata collator 	Responsible for the compilation of metadata for one or more
> datasets and submission of that metadata to the appropriate
> SeaDataNet metadata repository.
> programme operation responsibility 	Responsible for the operation of a data collecting programme.
> programme archive responsibility 	Responsible for the archive centre handling distribution of delayed
> mode data from a collecting programme and the long term
> stewardship of its data.
> programme realtime responsibility 	Responsible for the centre handling distribution of true and
> near real time data from a collecting programme.
> contact point 	Person responsible for the provision of information in response
> to queries concerning the metadata or underlying data.
> principal funder 	Person or organisation that funds the majority of an activity.
> contributing funder 	Person or organisation that contributes to the funding of an activity.
> principal investigator 	Scientific lead of data collection within a programme
> 
> 
> ISO roles:
> resourceProvider 	party that supplies the resource
> custodian 	party that accepts accountability and responsability for the data and ensures appropriate care and maintenance of the resource
> owner 	party that owns the resource
> sponsor 	party that sponsors the resource
> user 	party who uses the resource
> distributor 	party who distributes the resource
> originator 	party who created the resource
> pointOfContact 	party who can be contacted for acquiring knowledge about or acquisition of the resource
> principalInvestigator 	key party responsible for gathering information and conducting research
> processor 	party who has processed the data in a manner such that the resource has been modified
> publisher 	party who published the resource
> author 	party who authored the resource
> collaborator 	party who conducted or contributed to the research
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/26/13 2:38 PM, Derrick Snowden - NOAA Federal wrote:
>> ...
>> Codelists can be seen as antithetical to the CF goal of creating self describing files. Can we figure out a way to encode ISO objects with the need for references to other objects while still staying true to our goal of remaining aligned with CF? The last thing I'd want us to recommend is to open a door down a pathway back to Grib and BUFR.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Ted Habermann <thabermann at hdfgroup.org <mailto:thabermann at hdfgroup.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>    John et al.,
>> 
>>    I agree completely that a shared vocabulary with definition is
>>    critical. The old ISO vocab is at
>>    https://geo-ide.noaa.gov/wiki/index.php?title=ISO_19115_and_19115-2_CodeList_Dictionaries#CI_RoleCode.
>>    Many new roles were added in the most recent revision. There is
>>    also a brief discussion at
>>    http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/ISO_People (I will update that
>>    list to include revisions)...
>> 
>>    What is really important is that the representation allow
>>    specification of the source of the code along with the code
>>    itself. This is possible in THREDDS, but not ACDD. The job of the
>>    standard is to say we use a codelist for this item and that
>>    codelist has a location. It is the communities job to say: this is
>>    the codelist that our community uses.
>> 
>>    Ted
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    On Apr 26, 2013, at 1:02 PM, John Graybeal
>>    <graybeal at marinemetadata.org <mailto:graybeal at marinemetadata.org>>
>>    wrote:
>> 
>>>    Should be from a controlled vocabulary IMHO. BODC has (for
>>>    SeaDataNet) an extension of ISO role terms, if I recall
>>>    correctly. I think it isn't just for contributor roles, it's for
>>>    all roles that this is needed—ISO wasn't very thorough in the
>>>    first place, but there will always be new ways for people to be
>>>    connected to a data set.
>>> 
>>>    I don't think we have to be restrictive (in what roles are
>>>    allowed) but I think we should try to be explicit (about what a
>>>    role means).
>>> 
>>>    John
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:57, Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu
>>>    <mailto:ngalbraith at whoi.edu>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>    Hi John -
>>>> 
>>>>    One other item that I think we might need to have - beyond
>>>>    better definitions
>>>>    for some of the existing terms - is a CV for contributor roles.
>>>>    I think one exists,
>>>>    somewhere, but I'm not sure where. BODC, maybe? MMI? Or should
>>>>    this really
>>>>    be free text?
>>>> 
>>>>    Thanks -
>>>>    Nan
>> 
> 
> -- 
> *******************************************************
> * Nan Galbraith                        (508) 289-2444 *
> * Upper Ocean Processes Group            Mail Stop 29 *
> * Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                *
> * Woods Hole, MA 02543                                *
> *******************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-documentation mailing list
> Esip-documentation at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-documentation

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-documentation/attachments/20130427/a571bae0/attachment.html>

More information about the Esip-documentation mailing list