search

FAIRiCUBE / data-requests

Request data to be made available within FAIRiCUBE HUB
2 stars 0 forks source link

Update stac_dist/corine_land_cover/corine_land_cover.json-2 #280

Open baloola opened 4 months ago

misev commented 3 months ago

I have the same issue with updating the catalog entry for corine_land_cover as before with LGN: clicking Submit doesn't do anything.

baloola commented 3 months ago

I'll invistigate

baloola commented 3 months ago

I couldn't reproduce the issue, probably an issue caused by a value in the submitted form, our monitoring system needs a little bit of work, once I get the logs from the backend I'll get more insights about the error.

misev commented 3 months ago

I saved my input in case you want to try with replicating it: catalog-editor.eoxhub.fairicube.eu.zip

baloola commented 3 months ago

Thanks @misev, could you try again ?

misev commented 3 months ago

@KathiSchleidt please check this metadata merge PR.

In addition I think the following people should check as well:

misev commented 3 months ago

@KathiSchleidt The data request table in D5.1 looks a bit different from the priorities indicated in the catalog data request, I'm not sure which one is authoritative for requesting UC partner reviews?

Screenshot_20240711_120121

Susannaioni commented 3 months ago

In addition I think the following people should check as well:

  • "use_case_S4E": 1, @mari-s4e @MarvinMosel ?
  • "use_case_NHM": 1, @Susannaioni or @sonjastndl ?
  • "use_case_WER": 2, @robknapen ?

@misev yes, UC5 had priority 1 under Corine land cover

KathiSchleidt commented 3 months ago

@misev yes, there's a bit of confusion around the UC as NHM ended up doing 2 use cases, both UC3 & UC5 are NHM, whereby UC5 emerged late. In addition, a LOT went wrong with the Inventory Sheet over the last 2 years, UC4 (NILU) is the one UC I'm sure will NOT use CLC!

On use_case_NHM, to my memory both NHM UC will probably use CLC use_case_NHM: @sonjastndl use_case_NHM_2: @Susannaioni

I've added the known suspects as reviewers.

In addition, I noticed a discrepancy between the temporal information in the CLC Coverage vs. the metadata (once more thanks for digging into the available metadata on this, identifying the correct temporal intervals!), in the md record, we still have:

"time": {
"extent": [],
"type": "temporal",
"values": [
  "1990-01-01T00:00Z",
  "2000-01-01T00:00Z",
  "2006-01-01T00:00Z",
  "2012-01-01T00:00Z",
  "2018-01-01T00:00Z"
], ...

Please align!

misev commented 3 months ago

In addition, I noticed a discrepancy between the temporal information in the CLC Coverage vs. the metadata

The catalog editor allows to only enter single time points for irregular axis. Not sure how should I indicate the intervals for each slice?

Screenshot_20240715_132746

misev commented 2 months ago

I realized it may not be obvious how to review the data request @Susannaioni : go to the "Files changed" tab, check the XML (alternatively click Edit on corine_land_cover in the catalog editor), then finally click on the green "Review changes" button to approve or something else.