Ncdc s detailed entity attribute metadata
1 / 9

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • 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

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - 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


December 18, 2006


  • 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


  • Allows for Native Name info

  • Gives Coding format (Positioning / Field Length)


  • No place for Standard Names

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


  • 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


  • GCMD/CF Standard Names

  • Data discovery

  • Flexible


  • 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


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


  • 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”


  • 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