[Esip-preserve] [FOO] Bob reproduces Alice's research

[Bruce Barkstrom]

One other thing that gets interesting in citation precision is
whether the citation has enough precision to pick out the
anomaly identified in this scenario as the "wierd bump".
This is similar to the kind of issue that arises in some
validation exercises, where the data actually used in
field experiment intercomparisons is a very specific and
small piece of a much larger data set.  I haven't seen a
suggestion on how this issue would be dealt with in our
writings on citations.
Bruce B.
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes at nasa.gov> wrote:

> Bob has been reading Alice's paper, and notices a weird bump in the
> graphs around month 10 (due to the corrupt data).
>
> He tries to reproduce her process, following the methodology she
> documented with her paper.
>
> Following the cited data DOIs referenced in her paper, he downloads
>    FOOL3.v1.01.d08925b3-3eb3-407d-8db1-f5e0d101a0a4 and
>    FOOL3.v2.01.2a365058-fb52-4559-ab4b-085cb5ac0b73
>
> and performs the analysis.  Unsuprisingly, since he is using the
> revised data, he gets different answers from Alice.
>
> He gives her a call, and they work out that she actually used
>
>    FOOL3.v1.01.d08925b3-3eb3-407d-8db1-f5e0d101a0a4
>    FOOL3.v2.01.07aa9ae3-9c3e-4508-b027-890dae11b768
>
> Ok, says Bob, I'll just go back to the archive and get those files.
> They aren't available, but he does see that since the metadata and
> provenance were preserved, he can get the software and reproduce those
> granules.
>
> He gets the old L0 file and calibration file and produces some new
> files:
>
> FOOL1B.v2.10.c911b994-91fb-4d5c-b9e1-642c0a9c46a3
>  Used: FOOL0.10.0b337185-82af-4662-89b0-419bfd3e5db7 (old, corrupt file)
>        FOOCAL.2.d2a14052-f426-4d2e-a506-ec052fdb69d4
>
> FOOL2.v2.10.2c09ed89-57cf-40ed-910b-16c1aafcd947
>  Used: FOOL1B.v2.10.c911b994-91fb-4d5c-b9e1-642c0a9c46a3
>
> FOOL3.v2.01.52562fbd-5969-4572-a757-47ff3f92dda4
>  Used:
>    FOOL2.v2.01.bba34792-f256-4c54-81dd-9977e432c204
>    FOOL2.v2.02.2fd12da6-a3e2-4e50-8140-3ac645882419
>    FOOL2.v2.03.29bda893-765d-476d-851b-8b9acd7f140e
>    FOOL2.v2.04.57509ddb-3d40-4d60-8204-da4b99867fc7
>    FOOL2.v2.05.0e8604fa-fb4e-4cfb-b412-5364ca12cf14
>    FOOL2.v2.06.0eb26b4e-b718-41c5-bbf8-c83d3d79c233
>    FOOL2.v2.07.43079ea6-43b5-4622-b492-bcdb824a818e
>    FOOL2.v2.08.590fd64c-ec12-44a5-9b14-0042d19ed3dc
>    FOOL2.v2.09.226173b9-4ef7-49e8-8b9e-701b892a8f57
>    FOOL2.v2.10.2c09ed89-57cf-40ed-910b-16c1aafcd947
>    FOOL2.v2.11.af235d11-777c-4bf1-a5e6-15273a5e5d80
>    FOOL2.v2.12.bdc9dc33-38bd-403c-991e-48dcd4762ca7
>
>
> (For now, let's assume he can perfectly reproduce the environment and
> run the processing in an identical manner.  Big assumption, but a
> different issue than what I'm trying to highlight here.  We'll revisit
> that in a later episode.)
>
>
> Note that each of the files Bob produces has a different UUID, and
> different provenance.
>
> If, for example, you asked about
>
>    FOOL1B.v2.10.2f269e5e-cce7-41e4-8a83-baad1e087c8e
>
> the provenance would say that the main data processing system produced
> that file on a certain date/time on a certain host, while the file
> Bob made:
>
>    FOOL1B.v2.10.c911b994-91fb-4d5c-b9e1-642c0a9c46a3
>
> was made by Bob, at an entirely different time on a different host.
>
> The key thing though is that they each used the same software and the
> same input files and were run in the same way.
>
> In this world, let's accept that
>    FOOL1B.v2.10.2f269e5e-cce7-41e4-8a83-baad1e087c8e
> is scientifically equivalent to
>    FOOL1B.v2.10.c911b994-91fb-4d5c-b9e1-642c0a9c46a3
>
> Similarly:
>    FOOL2.v2.10.2c09ed89-57cf-40ed-910b-16c1aafcd947
> is scientifically equivalent to
>    FOOL2.v2.10.533b2a95-d57f-4f75-9b7d-914d3d220310
> and
>    FOOL3.v2.01.52562fbd-5969-4572-a757-47ff3f92dda4
> is scientifically equivalent to
>    FOOL3.v2.01.07aa9ae3-9c3e-4508-b027-890dae11b768
>
> So, Bob can now use these two granules:
>    FOOL3.v1.01.d08925b3-3eb3-407d-8db1-f5e0d101a0a4
>    FOOL3.v2.01.52562fbd-5969-4572-a757-47ff3f92dda4
>
> and follow Alice's methodology and reproduce the research in her
> paper.
>
> Curt
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-preserve/attachments/20101008/8b0c6ea4/attachment.html>