P&S Data Quality

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Revision as of 16:25, March 28, 2006 by HowardBurrows (talk | contribs)

Back to: Products and Services


Discussion from March 28, 2006

What dimensions of quality should be considered?

Quality control
Error bar
Missing data
Contamination (weather, clouds)
Instrument error (recalibration)
stability
Cross instrument consistency
Quality assurance (someone tags it as valid)
Useful metadata provided?
Subjective scaling (e.g. quality judgement with range 0-5)
Instrument Verification and Validation
Data processing
Re-processing tag and notification
input errors and forcings
re-gridding
missing data
Usage issues
High enough resolution?
Valid inference about what is measured
Chain of Custody (for legal use)

Strategic breakdown

  1. Instrument (accuracy, completeness, consistency)
  2. Environment (cloud)
  3. Processing

3rd party ratings

NCDC
NCDC Certified data (only states that it is in the archive)
GCMD
DIF records have some minimum required fields to accept
then have a text field to describe quality
ECHO
"measured parameters" from ECS model
QA percent cloud cover; missing pixels;
CLASS/Climate Data Record
Maturity Model approach for data (John Bates application from software maturity)
Level of maturity (five levels of improved treatment)
FGDC
Whole section on quality, text only
Testimonials
Peer review

Additional Questions

  • What common data quality standards can the Federation offer within the Earth Information Exchange?
  • How can we enforce these standards within the Earth Information Exchange?
  • Are there similar ratings for "data services"?