[Esip-infoquality] [External] question arising from presentation to the OGC DQ DWG meeting

[Ge Peng]

Hi Siri Jodha,



Thank you very much for attending yesterday's OGC DQ domain working group
meeting and appreciate your participation in discussion. I will try to
answer your questions which are in italic below and others may chime in.



*1)    **whether it makes sense to expand the "quality" umbrella to include
things that don't pertain to the inherent attributes of the data itself.*



Because there are more than just inherent attributes of the data itself
affect the overall quality of a dataset. See more discussion under question
3). There is a whole section in the guidelines document on data and
information attributes and dimensions.



*2)    **What is the benefit to the community of duplicating all the work
that has gone into defining features of a trustworthy digital repository?*



The work related to a trustworthy digital repository, represented by
CoreTrustSeal requirements, is primarily focusing on the organizational
capability and processes, not on individual datasets. The quality of all
datasets managed by a trustworthy repository is not always the same as it
is not guaranteed all of the datasets are produced, managed, and serviced
the same way. Only way users can know how is through accessing the
information. The short answer is that a trustworthy repository is not equal
to a trustworthy dataset.



*3)    **Adding services to a dataset doesn't necessarily improve its
quality. How well the quality of a dataset is conveyed in metadata is a
feature of the metadata, not the dataset.*



You appear to only think of data quality such as data accuracy, format,
timeliness, completeness, etc. Services can impact numerous quality
attributes of a dataset, including discoverability – how well the dataset
can be found; accessibility – how well the data can be obtained; and
usability – how easy it is for data to be used. For the same quality
attributes but from a stewardship perspective, having comprehensive
discovery metadata elements that conform to ESIP Attribute Convention for
Data Discovery metadata conventions will better enable services in data
discovery; capturing access protocols in metadata or user guide will help
users to understand how data can be accessed; and documenting sensor or
data product characteristics including accuracy, biases and error sources
will help scientists to understand how the data can be best utilized in
their own applications. All those do not change anything about the value or
structure of underlying data but certainly impact the service and
stewardship quality or maturity of the dataset.



Hope it helps. We are very close to producing a complete draft for
community review – hopefully by the middle of April and it’d be great to
get your feedback – you are already familiar with some of the background
information captured in the call-to-action statement paper. Additional
information such as that on quality attributes and dimensions, assessment
types, etc. will also be provided in the guidelines document.



Best regards,



--- Peng





On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:36 PM Siri Jodha Khalsa via Esip-infoquality <
esip-infoquality at lists.esipfed.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> This graphic from the draft FAIR-DQI community guidelines was presented in
> yesterday's OGC DQ domain working group meeting:
>
> which leads me to ask whether it makes sense to expand the "quality"
> umbrella to include things that don't pertain to the inherent attributes of
> the data itself. What is the benefit to the community of duplicating all
> the work that has gone into defining features of a trustworthy digital
> repository? Adding services to a dataset doesn't necessarily improve its
> quality. How well the quality of a dataset is conveyed in metadata is a
> feature of the metadata, not the dataset.
>
> Open to hearing other's opinion on this.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> SiriJodha
>
> --
> Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
> National Snow and Ice Data Center
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0449
> Traditional Territories of the Arapaho, Cheyenne and Ute Nations
> Office: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976  EU: +420 608 720 281http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-infoquality mailing list
> Esip-infoquality at lists.esipfed.org
> https://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-infoquality
>


-- 

Ge Peng, PhD

Sr. Principal Research Scientist

Earth System Science Center/NASA MSFC IMPACT

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

Ge.Peng at uah.edu

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-infoquality/attachments/20210323/910a27c5/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fmkpalddfbcchabk.png
Type: image/png
Size: 193929 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-infoquality/attachments/20210323/910a27c5/attachment-0001.png>