P&S Data Quality

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Revision as of 16:19, 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
Chain of Custody (for legal use)

Strategic breakdown

  1. Instrument (accuracy, completeness, consistency)
  2. Environment (cloud)
  3. Processing
  • 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
Testimonials
Peer review
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"?