Ticket #370 (closed task: fixed)

Opened 13 years ago

Last modified 12 years ago

[WG] ingestion of granule info via csml to b content

Reported by: lawrence Owned by: selatham
Priority: required Milestone: PROD Step1
Component: community Version:
Keywords: Cc:

Description

The list of parameters in the coapec dataset moles content falls far short of the list of parameters in the csml data ... ... and when we put get that right we will have a presentation problem - too many variables for a straight list - for both DX and MOLES - ... which we might as well link directly to the vocab server when we solve ...

Change History

comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by domlowe

Also the issue that the parameters in the moles content are from the GCMD list whereas the parameters in the csml won't be, and there may not be a corresponding GCMD code.

comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by rkl

I wondered if that was what Bryan was on about. CSML should be marked up with a usage vocabulary (i.e. one term per data channel) and MOLES with one or more discovery vocabularies (one term per group of data channels). So, fewer terms in MOLES than CSML should not necessarily be a problem.

However, Dom's comment raises a watchpoint. The mark-up in CSML and MOLES for COAPEC have been independently derived, which is not ideal. A better way to do this is to take the usage vocabulary terms and use a map/ontology to translate them into discovery terms. If there are usage terms missing from the map then the map governance should be alerted, who should take up the issue with vocabulary governance if required. At some stage the GCMD terms in COAPEC MOLES should be recreated in this manner.

What usage vocabulary is used for COAPEC? If it's CF Standard Names then the mapping to GCMD will be sorted later this year. If it's not, then there's some extra work to be specified and addressed.

comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by domlowe

COAPEC is CF compliant but does not use CF standard names. The vocab is controlled though as it is output from the Unified Model.

However I think the general problem is still there -especially with some of our datasets with less than controlled vocabularies.

comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by selatham

  • Status changed from new to assigned

Agree totally with Roy's description of how this process of parameter markup SHOULD happen. I think the coapec stuff is in 'Met Office PP stashcode' standard names. I seem to remember the BADC DataManagement? group discussing mapping it to CF a long time ago. Has anyone attempted it? I'm sure there are complications but it seems like it would benefit many people. I have a vague idea that the Met Office might be doing something?

comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by selatham

  • Type changed from task to issue
  • Summary changed from [m] ingestion of parameters via csml to b content to [WG] ingestion of parameters via csml to b content

I think this is a content creation issue not a discovery service task. Therefore moving to working grid.

comment:6 Changed 13 years ago by selatham

  • Component changed from T01_Discovery to T10_Working_Grid

comment:7 Changed 13 years ago by selatham

Bryan made the point that the Parameter Usage Vocabulary terms should also appear in MOLES, but under a granule. Therefore they are available for MOLES browse, but would not be used for Discovery.

So they need to be in the cross-over bit (S for Summary) with CSML. That's in ticket #384

comment:8 Changed 13 years ago by rkl

Having just buried into our usage of MOLES again whilst commenting on the MOLES review, I realised that what we ended up doing was putting PUV terms in the dgParameterSummary and the associated PDV terms in the dgStructuredKeyword. So, the PUV terms do appear in MOLES.

comment:9 Changed 13 years ago by lawrence

Umm, I don't think I ever said that PUV shouldn't be in discovery, I think it should be AS WELL as PDV ... until such time as we have a fully working ontology and we use it ... (and after that probably too :-)

comment:10 Changed 13 years ago by selatham

  • Milestone changed from PostAlpha_review to SystemIntegrationOctober2006

See wiki:MolesDiscussion page too now.

comment:11 Changed 12 years ago by selatham

  • Milestone changed from System Integration to BETA

comment:12 Changed 12 years ago by selatham

  • Milestone changed from BETA to End-of-June 07
  • Type changed from issue to task
  • Summary changed from [WG] ingestion of parameters via csml to b content to [WG] ingestion of granule info via csml to b content

This is the COAPEC granule summarisation up from CSML as required in the Final Quarter metaticket #767. Required by end-of-June.

comment:13 Changed 12 years ago by selatham

  • Status changed from assigned to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed

We've done a version of this for COAPEC. It's in the MOLES and the CSML appropriately. Instances in the CEDA exist db. Is it OK?

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.