<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman">Hi all,<br>
<br>
I think some information in the table Dean sent out may be wrong.
I've attached a spreadsheet that has our current understanding of
what the plans are.<br>
<br>
Note the entries in columns I and J. An entry in I indicates that
the group plans to host its own ESG data node and shows which
gateway it plans to publish to. An entry in column J indicates
that the group is not planning to host a node, and shows where it
will send its data (probably by disk). If both columns contain a
"0", then we have no information about whether or not the group
plans to host a node. Data sent to a gateway will be published to
that gateway.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Karl<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
On 1/20/11 2:44 PM, Williams, Dean N. wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C95DFADC.626F%25williams13@llnl.gov"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Martina,
Attached is the requested table with information that you needed for QC.
Let Karl and I know if you need additional information. Ben (ANU), Bryan
(BADC), and Michael (DKRZ), please look the table over.
Thank and best regards,
Dean
On 1/19/11 12:33 AM, "Martina Stockhause" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martina.stockhause@zmaw.de"><martina.stockhause@zmaw.de></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Hi, Dean, hi all,
a short status of the QC implementation:
QC documentation (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://purl.org/org/cmip5/qc">http://purl.org/org/cmip5/qc</a>):
We use this redmine pages for supporting errors or problems with the QC
tool as well. And we set up a subproject for discussion and technical QC
information within ESGF. Both parts need a registration. So, all people
involved in the QC L2 checks please register there.
For the construction of data links on the DOI resolving page we use the
information about your TDS root directory from
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://esgf.org/wiki/Cmip5Status#TDS_Specific">http://esgf.org/wiki/Cmip5Status#TDS_Specific</a>
QC checks L2:
BADC is intensively testing the qc tool on their UKMO data. Within that
tests some issues to be fixed came up. Parts of the results are ingested
and accessible from the central QCDB.
status:
* last changes of QC tool and QC wrapper: We will fix a version by end
of February and move the bug report from personal emails to the redmine
pages (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://redmine.dkrz.de/collaboration/projects/qc-internal">https://redmine.dkrz.de/collaboration/projects/qc-internal</a> -
registration required).
* criteria for assignment of QC L2 are in preparation (see the QC tool
exception list: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.leuchtturm-atlas.de/SCR/qc2list.html">http://www.leuchtturm-atlas.de/SCR/qc2list.html</a>)
QC checks L3:
This is in the final stage of adaptation.
* GUI to support the author approval step: first release for testing
within WDCC on 26.01.
* export of results from QCDB and cross- and double-checks are ready for
the current metafor examples.
QC and metafor:
We agreed on
1. using the contact and author list information from the questionnaire
simulations accessed via atomfeed.
2. reporting all QC results to metafor and from there via atomFeed to
the gateways. QC Level and DOI information have to reach the gateway.
3. setting up the DOI resolving page with basic information on the
DOI-ed data at BADC/within metafor
Unfortunately, we have no timeline with metafor for that issues.
status:
1. author list information have not found a place in the CIM document.
We are going to ask the main contact for that author list for the data
publication in the QC L3 process. The main contact might not include an
email address. The available examples does not.
2. A QC questionnaire with atomFeed is set up, but a tool for automatic
ingest of QC result information into the CIM repository is missing.
3. There is no example or to be used URL known to us. For the link to
additional metadata information that should point directly to the DRS
experiment within metafor we have no construction, yet.
getting around:
1. list of contacts at the modelling centers in the internal part of the
QC pages: Could you or Karl send such a list to me?
2. WDCC's database CERA can provide all quality information, since we
need them during QC L3. The relevant piece of information for the
gateways are QC Level and DOI (if existing). We have already set up a
view to provide that information.
3. We have started to set up a "mirror" of the DOI resolving page at
WDCC filled with data out of CERA. The link to data and metadata have
still to be added.
requirement:
We could need a table with the information, which modelling center
delivers its data to which of the ESGF partners. E.g. the TDS2CIM tool
could be prevented from scanning the same experiment in all three TDS
after replication checking for exchanged or new data. It would be
helpful for the QC workflow as well, especially in the case of data
exchanges during the QC process or revised data after DOI publication.
Dean, could you or Karl set up such a table in the ESGF wiki or elsewhere?
Best wishes,
Martina
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>