Difference between revisions of "Data Quality and Validation White Paper Kick-off, GSFC"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Participants: Joanne Nightingale, Chris Lynnes, Greg Leptoukh | ||
+ | |||
==White Paper on Data Quality and Validation Framework for RS data: Best practices and user perspective== | ==White Paper on Data Quality and Validation Framework for RS data: Best practices and user perspective== | ||
1. ''Objective'': | 1. ''Objective'': |
Latest revision as of 16:01, December 22, 2010
Participants: Joanne Nightingale, Chris Lynnes, Greg Leptoukh
White Paper on Data Quality and Validation Framework for RS data: Best practices and user perspective[edit | edit source]
1. Objective: Capture, harmonize and provide useful data quality for RS data
2. Current Status:
- No coordinate approach ... besides QA4EO, WGCV and some discipline-specific efforts
- Duplication of efforts across missions - inefficient utilization of funding
- Validation:
- L2: validate in some areas and extrapolate globally. Issues: filtering by QC flag doesn't necessarily lead to good product
- L3: what is L3 validation?
- Fitness for purpose: quality need should depend on data usage but the current quality is based on validation that has the specific purpose of validating instrument and retrieval algorithms
3. Suggested approach:
- Collect best practices from various communities and known efforts
- Develop consistent terminology and metrics, e.g., completeness, consistency, representativeness
- Identify main purpose classes and establish a high-level Q-metrics levels for different purposes:
- Climate change; model validation; event monitoring; tele
- Error budget:
- Propagate cal/L1 errors to L2 and L3
- Bias assessment:
- Quantify Spatial/temporal/vertical sampling effect
- Provenance:
- Capture, harmonize and deliver useful provenance
4. Decadal Survey era