[Esip-documentation] topics and schedule for ACDD

[John Graybeal via Esip-documentation]

OK, with all modifications included, we now have for Maintenance of Metadata:

> 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.
> 
> 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. 

I'll add these to the doc, trying a different means of indicating deletions/additions, and see if it is less intrusive.

John


---------------
John Graybeal
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
MMI Ontology Registry and Repository: http://mmisw.org/orr


On Dec 9, 2014, at 06:48, Nan Galbraith <ngalbraith at whoi.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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/a603e802/attachment-0001.html>