[Go-essp-tech] QC status

[Karl Taylor]

Hi all,

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.

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.

Best regards,
Karl




On 1/20/11 2:44 PM, Williams, Dean N. wrote:
> 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"<martina.stockhause at zmaw.de>
> wrote:
>
>>    Hi, Dean, hi all,
>>
>> a short status of the QC implementation:
>>
>> QC documentation (http://purl.org/org/cmip5/qc):
>> 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
>> http://esgf.org/wiki/Cmip5Status#TDS_Specific
>>
>> 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 (https://redmine.dkrz.de/collaboration/projects/qc-internal -
>> registration required).
>> * criteria for assignment of QC L2 are in preparation (see the QC tool
>> exception list: http://www.leuchtturm-atlas.de/SCR/qc2list.html)
>>
>> 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
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/go-essp-tech/attachments/20110120/94818de8/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: data_delivery.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 1626112 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/go-essp-tech/attachments/20110120/94818de8/attachment-0001.xls