Difference between revisions of "P&S Data Quality"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
m
Line 2: Line 2:
 
----
 
----
 
==Discussion from March 28, 2006==
 
==Discussion from March 28, 2006==
===What dimensions of quality should be considered?===
+
== Objective ==============
:Quality control
+
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.
::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
 
  
 +
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 ============
 +
Specify classifications on the 1-10 scale for each dimension
 +
 +
 +
==Other topics=====
 
:Quality assurance (someone tags it as valid)
 
:Quality assurance (someone tags it as valid)
 
::Useful metadata provided?
 
::Useful metadata provided?
::Subjective scaling (e.g. quality judgement with range 0-5)
 
  
 
:Instrument Verification and Validation
 
:Instrument Verification and Validation
Line 32: Line 38:
 
::Chain of Custody (for legal use)
 
::Chain of Custody (for legal use)
  
===Strategic breakdown===
+
===Completeness==========
#Instrument (accuracy, completeness, consistency)
+
Can we come up with categories of data completeness?
#Environment (cloud)
 
#Processing
 
  
 
===3rd party ratings===   
 
===3rd party ratings===   

Revision as of 18:55, March 28, 2006

Back to: Products and Services


Discussion from March 28, 2006

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

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

Our Task =========

Specify classifications on the 1-10 scale for each dimension


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)
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"?

Action

Rob will send advertisement to the whole group for next months meeting.