Difference between revisions of "P&S Data Quality"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
m |
m |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
::Testimonials | ::Testimonials | ||
::Peer review | ::Peer review | ||
| − | + | ---- | |
===Discussion=== | ===Discussion=== | ||
| − | ==== | + | ====Completeness==== |
*Is this a measure of quality? | *Is this a measure of quality? | ||
::Depends on stated offering from the provider; if they claim it is complete and it isn't | ::Depends on stated offering from the provider; if they claim it is complete and it isn't | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
* How can we enforce these standards within the Earth Information Exchange? | * How can we enforce these standards within the Earth Information Exchange? | ||
* Are there similar ratings for "data services"? | * Are there similar ratings for "data services"? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Action== | ||
| + | Rob will send advertisement to the whole group for next months meeting. | ||
Revision as of 15:39, March 28, 2006
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
- Objective scales
- Ratings from 1 to 10 reliability across a set of categories
- For example, environmental contamination moisture in air
- Consistency with other measures that should reflect same observables
- 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
- Instrument (accuracy, completeness, consistency)
- Environment (cloud)
- 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
- NCDC
Discussion
Completeness
- Is this a measure of quality?
- Depends on stated offering from the provider; if they claim it is complete and it isn't
Assertions about datasets
We may want some standard for claiming and measuring how valid a claim may be
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"?
Action
Rob will send advertisement to the whole group for next months meeting.
