1 / 9

NCDC’s Detailed Entity & Attribute Metadata

NCDC’s Detailed Entity & Attribute Metadata. Chris Fenimore Philip Jones NESDIS ITAT December 18, 2006. Overview. Current State Examples of E & A Metadata Work with Pros and Cons for each Discussion. Current State. Not properly used according to FGDC

MikeCarlo
Download Presentation

NCDC’s Detailed Entity & Attribute Metadata

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NCDC’s Detailed Entity & Attribute Metadata Chris Fenimore Philip Jones NESDIS ITAT December 18, 2006

  2. Overview • Current State • Examples of E & A Metadata Work with Pros and Cons for each • Discussion

  3. Current State • Not properly used according to FGDC • Hard to interpret (hundreds of parameters) • Not machine readable

  4. Original “Syntax” Approach Pro’s • Allows for Native Name info • Gives Coding format (Positioning / Field Length) Con’s • No place for Standard Names • Describes dbase design and logical consistency not data content --Not intended use (Meaning vs. Format) Conclusions • Use Semantic (meaning) approach • Only list core data attributes –not station ids, remarks, etc. • Use Standard Names for Attributes • Standard Name Issue:Native Names usually not well represented by the available Standard Names.

  5. EDOMV - Proposal A GCMD/CFStandard Name as AttributeLabel, Definition, & Source Native Name as (repeating) EnumeratedDomain Value of the Attribute

  6. EDOMV - Proposal A Pro’s • GCMD/CF Standard Names • Data discovery • Flexible Con’s • Native Names as enumerated domain values only • Can not use range domain values – means can not use Units, Resolution, or Scaling Fields • May force a poor Native Name-Standard Name relationship • Lack of GCMD support

  7. Paired Attribute - Proposal B Selected GCMD/CFStandard Names and theNative Namesas the Attributes EnumeratedDomain or RangeDomain for GCMD/CFStandard Names and Native Names DomainValues for GCMD/CFStandard Names dependent on values from Native Names

  8. Paired Attribute - Proposal B Pro’s • Choice between Type of Attribute Domain Value for either Standard and Native Name Attributes Con’s • Redundant info – possible meaning overlap between Native Names and Standard Names • Domain Values mandatory, but not all documentation gives an element’s range values –could guess range values or put “Unknown”

  9. Questions? • Where does NOAA/NCDC want to go? • ISO 19115-2 • Data Discovery Tools (build metadata to better serve the end result) • How does NOAA/NCDC get there? • Detailed E&A’s (Consistency? Or custom fit for each record? • Clearinghouse Harvest

More Related