P&S Data Quality
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Revision as of 15:13, 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
- What common data quality standards can the Federation offer within the Earth Information Exchange?
- What 3rd party ratings can we support?
- NCDC Certified data (only states that it is in the archive)
- DIF records have some minimum required fields to accept; then have a text field to describe quality
- Maturity Model approach for data (John Bates)
- Level of maturity (five levels of improved treatment)
- How can we enforce these standards within the Earth Information Exchange?
- Are there similar ratings for "data services"?
