[Esip-documentation] topics and schedule for ACDD

[Nan Galbraith via Esip-documentation]

On 12/8/14 3:26 PM, John Graybeal wrote:
> Yes, there was extensive discussion of the fact that many attributes 
> are fragile in some way, but (at the time at least) pointing that out 
> only seemed to extend the argument and decrease the likelihood of 
> consensus. Since many people do not use keywords quite the way you do 
> (choosing higher-level keywords for example), they are not as 
> consistently going to introduce errors if the attributes aren't 
> updated, and it leads us down a slippery slope of evaluating each 
> attribute for its fragility. I therefore propose to unmake your 
> adjustments in this area, resulting in the following:
>
>>     The ACDD geospatiotemporal attributes present a special case, as
>>     this information is already fully defined by the CF coordinate
>>     variables (the redundant attributes are recommended to simplify
>>     access). These attributes are redundant, but they are recommended
>>     because they greatly simplify data discovery and access. The risk
>>     of inconsistency between these attributes and the actual data is
>>     highest after aggregation or subsetting.
>>
>>     For this reason, some data providers may choose to omit the ACDD
>>     geospatiotemporal attributes from their files. If these
>>     attributes are present, checking them against the data can serve
>>     as a useful test of the metadata's validity.
>>
>
Very good - is the text within the parentheses being removed? That
would give us something shorter,  less redundant, like:

    The ACDD geospatiotemporal attributes present a special case, as this
    information is already fully defined by the CF coordinate variables.
    These
    attributes are recommended, despite being redundant, because they
    greatly simplify data discovery and access.

    The risk of inconsistency between these attributes and the actual
    data is
    highest after aggregation or subsetting; checking them against the
    data can
    serve as a useful test of the metadata's validity.

Also, what about the first part of the Maintenance of Metadata section?  
It wasn't clear to
me if you were leaving that, or replacing it. The list of roles seems 
too wordy (and
maybe a little didactic) to me. I propose replacing them with something 
like this:

    ACDD attributes characterize the data they are associated with. Any
    processing that
    alters these characteristics  is responsible for updating the
    relevant attributes.

    NetCDF file creators and software developers should ensure that the
    attributes of output
    data accurately represent that data, and specifically should not
    "pass through" any source
    attribute in unaltered form, unless it is known to remain accurate.
    NetCDF data users should
    verify critical attribute values, to be confident the source
    metadata is appropriate.


Thanks -
Nan

-- 
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith        Information Systems Specialist *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group            Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543                 (508) 289-2444 *
*******************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-documentation/attachments/20141209/c9f48222/attachment.html>