[Go-essp-tech] Access control for data with different QC Level

[V. Balaji]

Karl, I must disagree. I think the principle that the modeling centers
deserve acknowledgment from users of the data in the form of a citation
has to be a bedrock requirement, and I thought the WGCM leadership
understood and agreed.

I agree that the WGCM may not have a position on QC and versioning per
se, but they are necessary steps for a robust citation system, as the
Michael et al document shows. The WGCM must take a stand on citations.
If they do the rest follows.

I apologize if I am being hasty and misunderstood your remark, as
I'm rushing off to the next damn thing... (It's one of those "one
damn thing after another" days...)

Thanks,

Karl Taylor writes:

> Hi all,
>
> Hold the presses please!
>
> My understanding is that WGCM expects *all* output registered with ESG to be 
> made available to anyone who signs the terms of use, as soon as the output is 
> available (with perhaps a requirement that model documentation also be in 
> place).  There are no requirements for QC or replication placed on the 
> output.  [There aren't even any expectations that "versioning" be 
> implemented, although I think they will be pleased if it is.]  This is a 
> simple requirement, which should be easy for us to meet.
>
> It would, of course, be helpful for us to include information to users 
> concerning what QC checks have been performed, but that is not part of the 
> requirement, as I understand it.
>
> I'll try to respond in more detail later today.
>
> Best regards,
> Karl
>
> On 7/20/10 9:05 AM, Bryan Lawrence wrote:
>> Hi Balaji
>> 
>> On Tuesday 20 July 2010 16:39:26 V. Balaji wrote:
>> 
>>> Bryan, overall I agree with you both about the content of the tokens
>>> and the machinery for delivering and using tokens.
>>> 
>>> Small clarification, when you say
>>> 
>>> Bryan Lawrence writes:
>>> 
>>>> However, as it stands, we can't give a DOI to output which is not
>>>> replicated, but people will need to use it. I *do* think it's ok to
>>>> restrict this to modellers (despite Martin's point about what PCMDI
>>>> are advertising). I think most of the non-modelling community will
>>>> be happy with the replicated data ...
>>>> 
>>> Is "modellers" supposed to mean IPCC-WG1? I think so.
>>> 
>> Yes!  Sorry, lazy language.
>> 
>> Bryan
>>

-- 

V. Balaji                               Office:  +1-609-452-6516
Head, Modeling Systems Group, GFDL      Home:    +1-212-253-6662
Princeton University                    Email: v.balaji at noaa.gov