Ncdc s detailed entity attribute metadata
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 9

NCDC’s Detailed Entity & Attribute Metadata PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 57 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

NCDC’s Detailed Entity & Attribute Metadata. Chris Fenimore Philip Jones NESDIS ITAT December 18, 2006. Overview. Current State Examples of E & A Metadata Work with Pros and Cons for each Discussion. Current State. Not properly used according to FGDC

Download Presentation

NCDC’s Detailed Entity & Attribute Metadata

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Ncdc s detailed entity attribute metadata

NCDC’s Detailed Entity & Attribute Metadata

Chris Fenimore

Philip Jones

NESDIS ITAT

December 18, 2006


Overview

Overview

  • Current State

  • Examples of E & A Metadata Work with Pros and Cons for each

  • Discussion


Current state

Current State

  • Not properly used according to FGDC

  • Hard to interpret (hundreds of parameters)

  • Not machine readable


Original syntax approach

Original “Syntax” Approach

Pro’s

  • Allows for Native Name info

  • Gives Coding format (Positioning / Field Length)

    Con’s

  • No place for Standard Names

  • Describes dbase design and logical consistency not data content --Not intended use (Meaning vs. Format)

    Conclusions

  • Use Semantic (meaning) approach

  • Only list core data attributes –not station ids, remarks, etc.

  • Use Standard Names for Attributes

  • Standard Name Issue:Native Names usually not well represented by the available Standard Names.


Edomv proposal a

EDOMV - Proposal A

GCMD/CFStandard Name as AttributeLabel, Definition, & Source

Native Name as (repeating)

EnumeratedDomain Value of the Attribute


Edomv proposal a1

EDOMV - Proposal A

Pro’s

  • GCMD/CF Standard Names

  • Data discovery

  • Flexible

    Con’s

  • Native Names as enumerated domain values only

  • Can not use range domain values – means can not use Units, Resolution, or Scaling Fields

  • May force a poor Native Name-Standard Name relationship

  • Lack of GCMD support


Paired attribute proposal b

Paired Attribute - Proposal B

Selected GCMD/CFStandard Names and theNative Namesas the Attributes

EnumeratedDomain or RangeDomain for GCMD/CFStandard Names and Native Names

DomainValues for GCMD/CFStandard Names dependent on values from Native Names


Paired attribute proposal b1

Paired Attribute - Proposal B

Pro’s

  • Choice between Type of Attribute Domain Value for either Standard and Native Name Attributes

    Con’s

  • Redundant info – possible meaning overlap between Native Names and Standard Names

  • Domain Values mandatory, but not all documentation gives an element’s range values –could guess range values or put “Unknown”


Questions

Questions?

  • Where does NOAA/NCDC want to go?

    • ISO 19115-2

    • Data Discovery Tools (build metadata to better serve the end result)

  • How does NOAA/NCDC get there?

    • Detailed E&A’s (Consistency? Or custom fit for each record?

    • Clearinghouse Harvest


  • Login