<!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 Michael,<br>
<br>
I agree we should decide the criteria, and we'll have an
opportunity for this at the GO-ESSP meeting.<br>
<br>
Have a good weekend,<br>
Karl<br>
</font><br>
On 4/29/11 3:10 AM, Michael Lautenschlager wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4DBA8E7C.2070806@dkrz.de" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Karl et al.,
yes, I agree that we cannot expect all variables from all models and all
centres. We have to deal with differing completeness for DOI published
data entities. This is not a problem for DOI data publication because
each individual DOI points to the description and to the complete list a
data which is hind this entity.
But what we should discuss and decide on are the criteria for
completeness and for the "QC-L2 passed" flag (see Frank's earlier
response) for accepting data entities in the CMIP5/IPCC-AR5 reference
data archive and for DOI data publication. This is exactly on of the
topics I would like to discuss at the ESGF day and during the GO-ESSP
meeting.
Ag's request rise the question from a theoretical to a practical level
and we have to agree on a common procedure in order to guarantee
consistency across archives in QC level assignment and in completeness
of data entities.
Best wishes, Michael
Am 28.04.2011 19:38, schrieb Karl Taylor:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Ag,
There is another possible way of handling the "missing data" issue.
I'm not sure that a dataset should be be required to be complete
(i.e., required to include all time slices) to be considered eligible
for DOI assignment. That is, we could relax the criteria. Note that
I don't think we require *all* variables requested within a single
dataset to be present, so some datasets will indeed be incomplete but
be eligible for a DOI. I think the QC procedure should be to check
with the modeling group, and if they can't supply the missing
time-slices, then we somehow note this flaw in the dataset
documentation and if other QC checks are passed, assign it a DOI.
The criteria for getting a DOI should be that there are no known
errors in the data itself, and that there are no major problems with
the metadata. In this case the data will be reliable, and analysts
will be welcome to use it and publish results, so I think it should be
assigned a DOI.
What do others think?
Best regards,
Karl
On 4/28/11 3:12 AM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ag.stephens@stfc.ac.uk">ag.stephens@stfc.ac.uk</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear all,
At BADC we have come across our first "missing data" issue in the CMIP5 datasets we are ingesting. We have an example of some missing months for a particular set of variables that was revealed when running the QC code from DKRZ.
It would be very useful for the CMIP5 archive managers to make an authoritative statement about how we should handle missing data time steps in the archive.
I propose the following response when a Data Node receives a dataset in which time steps are missing:
1. QC manager (i.e. whoever runs the QC code) informs Data Provider that there is missing data in a dataset (specifying full DRS structure and date range missing).
2a. If Data Provider says "no, cannot provide this data" then the affected datasets cannot get a DOI and cannot be part of the "crystallised archive". STOP
2b. Data Provider re-generates files, data is re-ingested, new version is generated, QC is re-run, all is good. STOP
2c. Data Provider cannot re-generate but wants to pass QC - so needs to create the required files full of missing data.
3. Data Provider creates missing data files and sends, data re-ingested, new version is generated, QC re-run, all good. STOP
In cases 2a and 2c it would also be very useful if the dataset is annotated to inform the user which dates have been FILLED with missing data. This would, I believe, be in the QC logs but we might want a more prominent record of this if possible.
Cheers,
Ag
BADC--
Scanned by iCritical.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu">GO-ESSP-TECH@ucar.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech">http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>