ncdc s detailed entity attribute metadata
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
NCDC’s Detailed Entity & Attribute Metadata

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 9

NCDC s Detailed Entity Attribute Metadata - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 92 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'NCDC s Detailed Entity Attribute Metadata' - MikeCarlo


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
ad