search

NCEAS / metadig-engine

MetaDig Engine: multi-dialect metadata assessment engine
7 stars 5 forks source link

Do a 'suite' lit review #22

Open amoeba opened 7 years ago

amoeba commented 7 years ago

Real quick, there are tons of 'suites' out there in some form or another. Collate the ones we already know about and do some more searching for others. Synthesize the core, shared aspects and detail how our engine may want to / not want to support those aspects.

gothub commented 7 years ago

The ISO 19115 Core Elements has the notion of mandatory, optional and conditional metadata elements. How would we score in a report? Can this be done with a single check maybe and put in the mdq.message or does it have to be summarized at a higher level?

amoeba commented 7 years ago

Great point, @gothub. In the current system, I'd say we sorta can be sorta can't do this. Mandatory checks could be level_SEVERE, optional checks would be level_WARNING and I have no idea what the conditional checks are. Looking into that to see if it's more than a dependency on another element being present.

The ISO 'spirals' concept @tedhabermann wrote up on the NOAA EDM wiki presents a set of spirals which are like steps or tiers. How could we express this type of recommendation or do we want to?

tedhabermann commented 7 years ago

All,

We generally call these things "levels" in a recommendation, although we are maybe leaning towards calling them recommendation profiles. Quite a few are described at http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Documentation_Recommendations... We also tend to think about people addressing each level separately, i.e. as a separate set of checks. That way they can do the highest level first then the second, ...

Ted

From: Bryce Mecum notifications@github.com Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 2:13:31 PM To: NCEAS/mdqengine Cc: Ted Habermann; Mention Subject: Re: [NCEAS/mdqengine] Do a 'suite' lit review (#22)

Great point, @gothubhttps://github.com/gothub. In the current system, I'd say we sorta can be sorta can't do this. Mandatory checks could be level_SEVERE, optional checks would be level_WARNING and I have no idea what the conditional checks are. Looking into that to see if it's more than a dependency on another element being present.

The ISO 'spirals' concept @tedhabermannhttps://github.com/tedhabermann wrote up on the NOAA EDM wikihttps://geo-ide.noaa.gov/wiki/index.php?title=File:PotentialSpirals.png presents a set of spirals which are like steps or tiers. How could we express this type of recommendation or do we want to?

You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/NCEAS/mdqengine/issues/22#issuecomment-237669573, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGkaeRtPAJyYZjMH9-ajOgYPfcbk1H1sks5qckfrgaJpZM4JYfuG.

amoeba commented 7 years ago

Hey @tedhabermann thanks for the link. There's tons of great info on that wiki and the EDM one.

Separate checks is something we've also thought made sense. In our system, a separate set of checks could easily be done.

How important do you think it is for the grade to be pass/fail versus numeric (e.g., 8/10 checks passed)? We haven't gotten very detailed into scoring yet but our current system allows the recommendation (our "Suite") to have one or more Checks which either SUCCESS, FAILURE, SKIP, or ERROR (our fault). This supports a grade (e.g., 8/10) but really also supports pass/fail if you think of some level, e.g., 10/10 as "passing".