Difference between revisions of "P&S Data Quality"

Latest revision as of 15:30, May 23, 2006

NOTE: This does not yet incorporate a second discussion in April.  
 There will be a six hour workshop at the 2006 Summer Meeting 
 (see discussion May 23).

Objective

Create a common set of data quality metrics across all Federation data products. Data providers can provide measures for their own products. 3rd parties can provide their own ratings. Quality can refer to accuracy, completeness, and consistency. It is not clear how to measure consistency. It is desirable to provide quality assurance.

We would like to create a 1-10 Data quality scale, where:

 1 = no accuracy claimed
10 = fully reliable data that has withstood the test of time

This measure can be applied to any of the quality dimensions:

Quality Dimensions

Sensor/Instrument (well calibrated, stable, checked across instruments, V/V)
Spacecraft (locational and communication accuracy)
Environment Issues (contamination from clouds, rainfall, ground, sea, dirt, etc.)
Data Processing (accuracy of interpolation, algorithms, ancillary source data)

Our Task

Create a 1-10 scale for each dimension. We will work with Federation members to associate a quality description with each value.

3rd party ratings

NCDC

NCDC Certified data (only states that it is in the archive -- designates as official, not a quality statement)

Dataset docs use FGDC quality section, with different levels of detail

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)

See CDR Maturity paper

FGDC

Whole section on quality, text only

Testimonials

Peer review

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"?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ''Back to:'' [[Products and Services]]
 ----
-* What common data quality standards can the Federation offer within the Earth Information Exchange?
+ '''NOTE:''' This does not yet incorporate a second discussion in April.
-* What dimensions of quality should be considered?
+  There will be a six hour workshop at the 2006 Summer Meeting
+  (see discussion May 23).
+==Objective==
+Create a common set of data quality metrics across all Federation data products.  Data providers can provide measures for their own products.  3rd parties can provide their own ratings.  Quality can refer to accuracy, completeness, and consistency.  It is not clear how to measure consistency.  It is desirable to provide quality assurance.
+We would like to create a 1-10 Data quality scale, where:
+= no accuracy claimed
+= fully reliable data that has withstood the test of time
+This measure can be applied to any of the quality dimensions:
+===Quality Dimensions===
+#Sensor/Instrument (well calibrated, stable, checked across instruments, V/V)
+#Spacecraft (locational and communication accuracy)
+#Environment Issues (contamination from clouds, rainfall, ground, sea, dirt, etc.)
+#Data Processing (accuracy of interpolation, algorithms, ancillary source data)
+===Our Task===
+Create a 1-10 scale for each dimension.  We will work with Federation members to associate a quality description with each value.
+===Other topics===
+:Quality assurance (someone tags it as valid)
+::Useful metadata provided?
+: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)
+Completeness
+Can we come up with categories of data completeness?
+===3rd party ratings===
+::NCDC
+:::NCDC Certified data (only states that it is in the archive -- designates as official, not a quality statement)
+:::Dataset docs use FGDC quality section, with different levels of detail
+::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)
+:::See [[Media:Bates-Barkstrom_CDR_maturity_paper.pdf|CDR Maturity paper]]
+::FGDC
+:::Whole section on quality, text only
+::Testimonials
+::Peer review
+----
+===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?
-* What 3rd party ratings can we support?
 * Are there similar ratings for "data services"?