scgordon
commented
6 years ago We use separate guidance pages that are editable by the community, and link to it in the report. Keeps it simple and easily improved.
From: Peter Slaughter notifications@github.com Reply-To: NCEAS/metadig-engine reply@reply.github.com Date: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 12:28 PM To: NCEAS/metadig-engine metadig-engine@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: [NCEAS/metadig-engine] Metadata compliance guidelines (#138)
It would be helpful to have guidelines for how to create and edit metadata that is compliant with the quality checks in our locally developed suites (KNB, ADC).
Currently, the only information that a user has regarding compliance with these suite checks (or any other MetaDIG suite) are the brief explanations given from the quality report itself, for example, the explanation given for the failed publication date check shown below:
[screen shot 2018-07-03 at 11 06 57 am]https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/6412946/42237265-2688645e-7eb2-11e8-919a-69e95e74f455.png
While most of the checks are very simple, there are no examples or descriptions of how to resolve these problems, for example, which EML (or other metadata format) field to edit, or links to MetacatUI editor documentation for a relevant field (if such documentation exists).
So, how best to resolve this issue? Here are a couple of possibilities:
- Add more info on the quality report (in MetacatUI) itself on how to resolve failed checks.
- Add a vignette to metadig-engine to explain how to resolve checks
- A separate document somewhere else?
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/NCEAS/metadig-engine/issues/138, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKKyzYEdqQPyZp7w95Ohec1gMmOCk4YMks5uC7fVgaJpZM4VBbjq.
gothub
It would be helpful to have guidelines for how to create and edit metadata that is compliant with the quality checks in our locally developed suites (KNB, ADC).
Currently, the only information that a user has regarding compliance with these suite checks (or any other MetaDIG suite) are the brief explanations given from the quality report itself, for example, the explanation given for the failed
publication datecheck shown below:While most of the checks are very simple, there are no examples or descriptions of how to resolve these problems, for example, which EML (or other metadata format) field to edit, or links to MetacatUI editor documentation for a relevant field (if such documentation exists).
So, how best to resolve this issue? Here are a couple of possibilities: