[Go-essp-tech] CIM Quality Examples

[Martina Stockhause]

  Hi, Sylvia,

I add the answers for 2) and 3)

> 2) I am trying to understand what you mean by the granularity of an ESG dataset / publication unit and experiment.  Again I just do see this side of things....
> The current query from the model metadata side displays  all the datasets that have model=x and experiment=y in their TDS.  Is there one QC value for this entire set or are they on the level of the individual datasets in that set (e.g. from a data search.....   project=CMIP5 / IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, model=HadGEM2-ES, Met Office Hadley Centre, experiment=historical, time_frequency=6hr, modeling realm=atmos, ensemble=r1i1p1, version=20101208)
>
> The reason I ask is that if there is one QC value for the entire set, then displaying this information with the model metadata makes sense.  If it is at the level of the search listing above, then it may best be displayed with the data page itself since there is a one to one correspondence.
>
I am not sure what you mean by model metadata side. If I speak of 
experiment I mean the TDS sense of experiment (in metafor that would be 
a simulation) and I mean the full DRS name of the experiment, e.g. 
cmip5.output1.IPSL.IPSL-CM5A-LR.amip4K. For me the model is part of this 
DRS experiment name "IPSL-CM5A-LR".
If your model metadata is the metadata of the realization of one 
experiment performed by one model, than this should be my "experiment".

The information for the QC status of an experiment is not sufficient, 
esp. if it comes to DOIs. DOIs are related to the latest version (in our 
example: version=20101208 ) of all datasets belonging to an experiment 
at the time of DOI assignment. Afterwards that version(s) of the 
individual datasets belonging to the DOI are fixed. If there is data 
published afterwards under a new version, it is not part of the DOI. So, 
if you have a quality information/status for an experiment, not all of 
the datasets and not always the latest versions of every dataset are 
connected to it. For the time of QC level assignment for the experiment 
and CIM experiment document publication, the CIM dataset documents tell 
you which versions of the datasets are part of that assignment.

Difficult to explain, I hope you get it nevertheless.
> 3) The primary suggestion I would make is that if there is key information that we need to extract and display or extract to connect to something else, that this should not be buried in a long string.  It should be a stand alone entity.
I agree. I just did not find a proper tag. I would be grateful for any 
suggestions. I hoped that the metafor people would make assist me, but 
they seem to be occupied by other topics. Besides, I still have not 
understood there concept how to map metafor UUIDs to CMIP5/Thredds DRS_IDs.

Have a nice weekend,
Martina

>
> On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Martina Stockhause wrote:
>
>>   Hi, Sylvia,
>>
>> we offer two preliminary CIM Quality examples to give you a first
>> impression of the quality documents to be harvested by the gateways:
>>
>> http://anticyclone.dkrz.de:8088/geonetwork/srv/en/atom.latestCIM
>> internal_ids=1896,1897
>>
>> A few explanations where to find the core information:
>>
>> - Quality information will be provided on ESG dataset / publication unit
>> level and experiment level. The example with internal_id=1897 is a
>> dataset and the internal_id=1896 is the related experiment.
>>
>> - pass/fail information: "pass" with pass=0 (failed) pass=1 (passed).
>> The examples haven't completed QC L2 and therefore are pass=0.
>> Interesting are more the pass=1 documents. Therefore I suggest to
>> publish them by AtomFeed only for QC status changes and therefore a pass=1.
>>
>> - QC Level: "nameOfMeasure" or "measureIdentification/code" (string
>> includes "2" or "3"). These are examples for QC L2.
>>
>> - DRS_ID: I did not find an exclusive tag for that, therefore it is part
>> of "evaluationMethodDescription", e.g.
>> dataset_id=cmip5.output1.IPSL.IPSL-CM5A-LR.amip4K.3hr.atmos.3hr.r1i1p1.v20110429
>> or part of the "title". I would not suggest to use the "title". We keep
>> the version because for QC L3 it is important to assign only a specific
>> version of a dataset the QC level 3.
>>
>>
>> Status and expected changes:
>> - Hans and I were handed over Bryan's QC tool for CIM quality document
>> creation. We still need a bit of development and discussion about the
>> application with Bryan, before we can use it. Therefore the CIM document
>> might change (CIM schema v1.5 should be stable, but semantics might change).
>> - The field for the DRS_ID might change. "measureIdentification/code"
>> and "pass" will remain. We can give you distinct
>> "measureIdentification/code" values for QC L2 and QC L3 when we are ready.
>> - Address of AtomFeed might change.
>> - Schema location for validation will be added, document_id etc. with
>> the use of Bryan's QC tool.
>>
>> If you need more information or have suggestions for changes, please let
>> us know.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Martina and Hans
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
>> GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech
> ***********************************
> Sylvia Murphy
> NESII/CIRES/NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
> 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305
> Email: sylvia.murphy at noaa.gov
> Phone: 303-497-7753
> Fax: 303-497-7649
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
------------------ DKRZ / Data Management ------------------
Martina Stockhause	
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum	phone:	+49-40-460094-122
Bundesstr. 45a			FAX:	+49-40-460094-106
D-20146 Hamburg, Germany	e-mail:	stockhause at dkrz.de
------------------------------------------------------------