Observation quality is to be provided via the DQ_Element type. However, it is unclear which DQ_Element is being referenced (the models are quite different!):
ISO 19115
ISO 19157
Additionally, DQ_Element requires provision of the result utilizing DQ_Result (both models). However, DQ_Result is only defined for
For our use case, we would require a DQ_CategoryResult, in order to provide verification and validity levels from a codelist (usually 3-4 options, i.e. raw data, preliminary validation, fully validated). Can we propose this here, or do we need to push this towards the DQ group?
The STA SWG kinda outsourced the quality issue, so no one in the group is an expert on this topic.
It would be great to have a best practice document on how to deal with this.
Observation quality is to be provided via the DQ_Element type. However, it is unclear which DQ_Element is being referenced (the models are quite different!):
Additionally, DQ_Element requires provision of the result utilizing DQ_Result (both models). However, DQ_Result is only defined for
For our use case, we would require a DQ_CategoryResult, in order to provide verification and validity levels from a codelist (usually 3-4 options, i.e. raw data, preliminary validation, fully validated). Can we propose this here, or do we need to push this towards the DQ group?
Link to Fraunhofer GitHub: https://github.com/FraunhoferIOSB/FROST-Server/issues/98 Link to INSIDE-information-systems GitHub: https://github.com/INSIDE-information-systems/SensorThingsAPI/issues/6