search

ioos / compliance-checker

Python tool to check your datasets against compliance standards
http://ioos.github.io/compliance-checker/
Apache License 2.0
107 stars 58 forks source link

coverage_content_type #591

Open akrishnan1 opened 6 years ago

akrishnan1 commented 6 years ago

The ACDD 1.3 check currently does not validate the coverage_content_type attribute values against the controlled codelist at https://geo-ide.noaa.gov/wiki/index.php?title=ISO_19115_and_19115-2_CodeList_Dictionaries#MD_CoverageContentTypeCode

Some of the files that I tested had the coverage_content_type listed as "auxiliaryInformation" and those still passed the check

Bobfrat commented 6 years ago

Great catch. We do actually check that but we probably created that list from here, where there is the same misspelling you're reporting:

http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Attribute_Convention_for_Data_Discovery_1-3#coverage_content_type

For reference https://github.com/ioos/compliance-checker/blob/master/compliance_checker/acdd.py#L699-L712

Bobfrat commented 6 years ago

Or is the misspelling is actually on the ISO end? I don't think auxillary is a word.

akrishnan1 commented 6 years ago

That's right. How should this be resolved, then? Personally, I think we should keep it the way it has been spelled in the ISO document.

Bobfrat commented 6 years ago

I suppose it would be prudent to let someone know of the misspelling and inconsistency between ESIP site and the ISO document. Not sure exactly who to talk to. @jbosch-noaa any ideas?

One option is we could accept both spellings in the compliance checker.

akrishnan1 commented 6 years ago

I have sent an email to the ESIP mailing list. Will wait for folks to weigh in.

mwengren commented 6 years ago

Maybe @amilan17 has some insight into it. Most NOAA metadata seems to refer to the ISO Codelists hosted at NCEI (formerly NGDC at these URLs: https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/emma/xsd/schema/resources/Codelist/gmxCodelists.xml#MD_CoverageContentTypeCode ) as linked from the GEO-IDE wiki, but I know these are in the process of moving to a new home/URL.

But perhaps this error is in the official ISO codelists as well, not just the NOAA ones, I honestly don't know where to find those offhand.

akrishnan1 commented 6 years ago

I found an official copy of the ISO 19115-1 document and I see the typo in it as well.

benjwadams commented 5 years ago

Have any conclusions been reached regarding the accepted values?