Difference between revisions of "Documentation Guidance Methods"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
m
Line 1: Line 1:
The goal of this work is to provide useful guidance for metadata for resource discoverability, accessibility, usability, and understanding to communities that have a wide variety of metadata requirements, a variety of existing metadata dialects and a variety of management systems. In order to achieve this, the guidance must be created at a conceptual level and connected to a variety of dialects. In addition, users must be able to consider a variety of existing recommendations and how those recommendations can be implemented in their dialects of choice.
+
Deciding which metadata dialect is most appropriate for the metadata in question can be approached in two ways:
  
In order to achieve this, we have implemented an ensemble approach to generating metadata guidance that is illustrated schematically for three recommendations (ACDD, CSW, and DIF) in Figure 1. In the first selection scenario, a user needs guidance that combines the Attribute Convention for Data Discovery (ACDD) and Open Geospatial Consortium Catalog Services for the Web (CSW). There are five concepts that are included in those two recommendations (A-E in this schematic). Of those, four are in one of the recommendations (A and B in ACDD, D and E in CSW) and one (C) is in two recommendations. Thus, for selection scenario #1, A, B, D, and E have scores of 1 and C has a score of 2.
+
:A)If there is no agreed upon “best practice” metadata dialect within the community that will be using the data, best approach is to evaluate which dialect contains the maximum required, recommended, and optional concepts as your metadata. This method minimizes the amount of your metadata that has to be changed for compatibility and therefore conserves time and effort. (See Fig. _____ for visual example)
  
[[File:EnsembleMethod.png]]
 
 
In the second selection scenario, a user needs guidance that combines the NASA Directory Interchange Format (DIF) with the previous two recommendations. This brings in one additional concept (F), and changes the scores for each concept as shown in this Table:
 
    <table border="1" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
 
      <tr>
 
        <td></td>
 
        <td colspan="2" align="center">Scores</td>
 
        <td colspan="2" align="center">ACDD</td>
 
        <td colspan="2" align="center">CSW</td>
 
        <td colspan="2" align="center">DIF</td>
 
      </tr>
 
      <tr>
 
        <td>Scenario</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">2</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">2</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">2</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">2</td>
 
      </tr>
 
      <tr>
 
        <td align="center">A</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
      </tr>
 
      <tr>
 
        <td align="center">B</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
      </tr>
 
      <tr>
 
        <td align="center">C</td>
 
        <td align="center">2</td>
 
        <td align="center">3</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
      </tr>
 
      <tr>
 
        <td align="center">D</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">2</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center"></td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
      </tr>
 
      <tr>
 
        <td align="center">E</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">2</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
      </tr>
 
      <tr>
 
        <td align="center">F</td>
 
        <td align="center">0</td>
 
        <td align="center">1</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">&nbsp;</td>
 
        <td align="center">x</td>
 
      </tr>
 
    </table>
 
 
[[Category:Documentation Connections]]
 
[[Category:Documentation Connections]]

Revision as of 08:16, May 28, 2015

Deciding which metadata dialect is most appropriate for the metadata in question can be approached in two ways:

A)If there is no agreed upon “best practice” metadata dialect within the community that will be using the data, best approach is to evaluate which dialect contains the maximum required, recommended, and optional concepts as your metadata. This method minimizes the amount of your metadata that has to be changed for compatibility and therefore conserves time and effort. (See Fig. _____ for visual example)