Difference between revisions of "Question Three"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
-------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Use appropriate metadata standards that include quality data | ||
| + | * Embed links in metadata to community-supported quality information (see questions [[http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Question_Eight 8]] and [[http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Question_Nine 9]]) | ||
| + | * Include ability to find citations to data in publications to illustrate uses | ||
| + | * Create tools to compare basic attributes of comparable datasets (see question [[http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Question_Eleven 11]]). I.E. C/NET product comparisons | ||
| + | * Keep [all] documentation with data. Evolve data models to include all relevant metadata | ||
| + | * Invest in other quality and impact metrics. For example, scholarly citation metrics | ||
| + | |||
| + | -------------------------------------- | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Develop tools (such as the DIAL authoring tools) that allow users to explore appropriate uses | ||
| + | * Richer quality measurements in metadata | ||
| + | * Work with/to standards | ||
| + | * COMMUNITY vetting for quality marking: make data available to the broader community earlier (See #3) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:06, January 7, 2009
Enter your discussion report-out below:
3. How can data providers make it easier to assess the data quality and the appropriate uses for a data set?
- Use watermarks as a "stamp of approval"
- "Brand" products (through time)
- Develop registry of trusted entities. (assessing quality of watermarkers)
- Use appropriate metadata standards that include quality data
- Embed links in metadata to community-supported quality information (see questions [8] and [9])
- Include ability to find citations to data in publications to illustrate uses
- Create tools to compare basic attributes of comparable datasets (see question [11]). I.E. C/NET product comparisons
- Keep [all] documentation with data. Evolve data models to include all relevant metadata
- Invest in other quality and impact metrics. For example, scholarly citation metrics
- Develop tools (such as the DIAL authoring tools) that allow users to explore appropriate uses
- Richer quality measurements in metadata
- Work with/to standards
- COMMUNITY vetting for quality marking: make data available to the broader community earlier (See #3)
