[Go-essp-tech] Access control for data with different QC Level
V. Balaji
V.Balaji at noaa.gov
Tue Jul 20 11:00:49 MDT 2010
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
More information about the GO-ESSP-TECH
mailing list