Changes between Version 6 and Version 7 of MolesDiscussion


Ignore:
Timestamp:
17/07/06 16:54:59 (13 years ago)
Author:
lawrence
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • MolesDiscussion

    v6 v7  
    66==== Issues on the Table ==== 
    77 
    8 (Will eventually be a list of tickets) 
    98 1. The CoatHanger 
    109 1. Granules 
    1110 1. Stub-B Schema 
    1211 
     12The aim of this document is to discuss these issues and identify the particular tickets we need to raise towards solving them as soon as we can. 
     13 
    1314==== Stub-B ==== 
    1415 
    1516Work is underway to modularise MOLES so that components can be used in the MOLES schema 
    16 itself and in the stub-B schema. (''Need some details''. What is involved? Saved for  
    17 another day). 
     17itself and in the stub-B schema. (''No new ticket needed, this is ticket:287, but it does need more detail. What is involved?''). 
    1818 
    1919 * Noting that stub-b is a major interface for browse and travelling metadata 
     
    2222=== The CoatHanger === 
    2323 
    24 Issue CH1: how do we import material into MOLES? It turns out we already have the ''dgMetadataDescriptionType'': 
     24'''Issue:''' how do we import material into MOLES? It turns out we already have the ''dgMetadataDescriptionType'': 
     25 
    2526[[Image(dgMetadataDescriptionType)]] 
     27 
    2628which should occur in each moles record, although it doesn't form ''part'' of one 
    2729of the major entities (Activity, Data Production Tool, Observation Station, Deployment, Data Entity). The descriptionSection would seem to be a useful adendum to each of these in their own right (possibly instead of making it part of the overall description, since we see this additional information being additional attribute(s) of the entities). 
    2830 
    29 ''To consider:'' Making a descriptionSection ''part'' of each of the major entities, allowing a stub-b to include this information for each of the first order entities in a natural way. 
     31Agreed? Then: ''Ticket Needed:Making a descriptionSection '''part''' of each of the major entities, allowing a stub-b to include this information for each of the first order entities in a natural way.'' 
    3032 
    31 Issue CH2: The Online Reference type  
     33'''Issue:''' The Online Reference type  
    3234 
    3335[[Image(dgOnlineReferenceType.png)]] 
     
    3638one expects to insert the linked object, point to the linked object, or render the remote object, and insert it ... 
    3739 
    38 Issue CH3: Provide a suggested mechanism of exploiting xlink to do this. (A proposal should be a schema fragment which includes a controlled vocabulary for the attributes 
    39 of the xlink, recognising that we will be on the bleeding edge here and some future 
    40 changes in our technology may be necessary). 
     40'''Issue:''' ''Ticket Needed: Provide a suggested mechanism of exploiting xlink to do this.'' (A proposal should be a schema fragment which includes a controlled vocabulary for the attributes of the xlink, recognising that we will be on the bleeding edge here and some future changes in our technology may be necessary). 
    4141 
    42 Issue CH4: NumSim in particular. Here we expect to wait for an ISO19139 compliant version, which will have clear subcomponents targetted for the deployment and data production tools. 
     42'''Issue''' NumSim in particular. Here we expect to wait for an ISO19139 compliant version (ticket:284), which will have clear subcomponents targetted for the deployment and data production tools. 
    4343 
    4444=== Granules === 
     
    6969Looking through this we can see the  
    7070 
    71  * IsOutput variable (boolean). ''BNL can't really see the point of this. KON did explain, but this needs revisiting'' 
    72  * The next thing is a choice of four items, only one of which should appear for any parameter. Either the value, or the range of values, or an enumeration list of the  value types, or a compound group should appear.   '' It needs to be a choice as to whether this thing exists and it needs a name. We also need Roy to give us a few practical examples of how the parameter group is intended to work '' 
     71 * IsOutput variable (boolean). ''BNL can't really see the point of this. KON did explain, but this needs revisiting''. ''Decide: In or out?'' 
     72 * The next thing is a choice of four items, only one of which should appear for any parameter. Either the value, or the range of values, or an enumeration list of the  value types, or a compound group should appear. ''Yes/No? If so, ticket needed: It needs to be a choice as to whether this thing exists and it needs a name.'' ''Also another ticket: Roy to give us a few practical examples of how the parameter group is intended to work '' 
    7373 * The other elements are rather obvious, but ... 
    74    * Note that we would expect to use the dgStdParameterMeasured variable to encode both the phenomenon name and the cell bounds (so we get the averaging information  here). ''Can we promote something useful from the CF cell methods?'' 
     74   * Note that we would expect to use the dgStdParameterMeasured variable to encode both the phenomenon name and the cell bounds (so we get the averaging information  here). ''Can we promote something useful from the CF cell methods? Ticket Needed'' 
    7575 * I suppose we imagine a granule of consisting of multiple phenomena with multiple feature types, but we would expect that any one phenomenon in one granule to have one feature type (''Andrew/Dominic?''). In which case the feature type name and the feature type catalogue from which it is governed should also be encoded per parameter. However, one might argue that the assumption might be violated, and in any case, at this point the user might be pointed to the WFS level. ''It would certainly be simpler, and possibly more useful to generate a list of feature types present in the granule (along with their FTC 
    76 antecedents).'' 
     76antecedents).'' ''Yes/No? Ticket Needed?!'' 
    7777 
    78 Now we have this information at the granule level, how much of it should be summarised up at the data entity level by the moles creator? (''We would need tools to do this!'') 
     78Now we have this information at the granule level, how much of it should be summarised up at the data entity level by the moles creator? (''Ticket: We would need tools to do this!'') 
    7979 
    8080The overall material includes the following data summary: 
     
    8282[[Image(DataEntityGeneral2.jpg)]] 
    8383 
    84 It is a moot question as to how much of this needs to be replicated from the granule content.  
     84It is a moot question as to how much of this needs to be replicated from the granule content. ''Tickets needed on some of the following'' 
    8585 * BNL would argue that the spatio-temporal coverage should be the *union* of the granule coverages (''need a tool to produce this''). 
    86  * The parameter coverage is a bit more complicated, because now we think we could have, for example, temperature monthly means and temperature annual means in the granules. I think the only thing that makes sense is to aggregate the granule parameter summaries. ''In which case why bother? We can parse the granule content.'' 
    87  * ''There ought however to be a consolidated lists of feature types present ... as well'' 
     86 * The parameter coverage is a bit more complicated, because now we think we could have, for example, temperature monthly means and temperature annual means in the granules. I think the only thing that makes sense is to aggregate the granule parameter summaries. ''In which case why bother? We can parse the granule content. Remove?'' 
     87 * ''There ought however to be a consolidated lists of feature types present ... as well. Add?'' 
    8888 * The other elements seem appropriate. 
    8989 
     
    9292[[Image(DataEntityGeneral1.jpg)]] 
    9393 
    94  * The dgDataSet Type should allow 'Mixed' (as for example both model and obs may be included in a dataset). ''One assumes these are effectively booleans?'' 
    95  * I don't really understand dbBasicData and dgDerivedData. In particular, the basic data context is really about listing the feature types, but we think we have that elsewhere, and we have in the dgDataSet information as to whether the data is simulated or an analysis. The only other option is that the data has been processed (derived) in someway, in which case there is utility in providing links to underlying datasets ''but these ought to be DataEntities not data granules'' ... assuming that the detailsof teh derivation/processing are in the dpt, the links are all that are really needed. The choice of timseries, integration etc is redundant as that information exists in the feature type and phenomenon information. 
     94 * The dgDataSet Type should allow 'Mixed' (as for example both model and obs may be included in a dataset). ''One assumes these are effectively booleans?''''Ticket!'' 
     95 * I don't really understand dbBasicData and dgDerivedData. In particular, the basic data context is really about listing the feature types, but we think we have that elsewhere, and we have in the dgDataSet information as to whether the data is simulated or an analysis. The only other option is that the data has been processed (derived) in someway, in which case there is utility in providing links to underlying datasets ''but these ought to be DataEntities not data granules'' ... assuming that the detailsof teh derivation/processing are in the dpt, the links are all that are really needed. The choice of timeseries, integration etc is redundant as that information exists in the feature type and phenomenon information. ''Remove most of this section in the schema?'' 
    9696 
    9797