Changes between Version 4 and Version 5 of WorkingGrid/DataProviderSetup/PML/POLJan07


Ignore:
Timestamp:
17/01/07 16:49:09 (13 years ago)
Author:
pmiller
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • WorkingGrid/DataProviderSetup/PML/POLJan07

    v4 v5  
    1717We will host services: Browse interface GUI, WCS- or DX-based backend, WCS- or DC-based frontend GUI (ie WMS Client or GeoSPLAT), ... 
    1818 
    19  * Metadata: Discussion on Roy's granularity issues, multiple related data entities for All Cruises->Individual cruises->CTD's, etc. Only the 'All Cruises' aggregated MOLES record will be discoverable as a DIF. Argh - Bryan hasn't implemented related entities in Browse (because he hasn't got a Stub-B schema...) so you can't actually get to the individual cruise yet! Suggested adding 'Discoverable' boolean parameter to each MOLES record. I repeated my view that deciding how to aggregate all the DP datasets is unlikely to be a successful approach, both in terms of getting a quality selection of DIFs, and in users being impressed with a Discovery search resulting in 'All cruises', 'All SeaWiFS data globally', etc. I believe all the MOLES records should have DIFs, and Discovery should do a better job like Google in indexing and ordering the results. E.g. if user searches 'chlor' then the aggregated datasets would be a sensible result, but if user searches 'chlor' + 1998 + North Sea then they should see a few matching cruises and a few closely matching satellite datasets (SeaWiFS North Sea 1998, SeaWiFS global 1998). Bryan thinks that this would be nice but won't be done in NDG2. I maintain there should be a relatively easy way to add this to Discovery, to avoid DP's having to mess with their datasets after they've gone to the trouble of releasing them. E.g. Are the DIF related record fields being used? Don't think so. Peter must write report if he wants this to happen in NDG2, and it must be really easy. 
     19 * Metadata: Discussion on Roy's granularity issues, multiple related data entities for All Cruises->Individual cruises->CTD's, etc. Only the 'All Cruises' aggregated MOLES record will be discoverable as a DIF. Argh - Bryan hasn't implemented related entities in Browse (because he hasn't got a Stub-B schema...) so you can't actually get to the individual cruise yet! Suggested adding 'Discoverable' boolean parameter to each MOLES record.  
    2020 
     21 * I repeated my view that deciding how to aggregate all the DP datasets is unlikely to be a successful approach, both in terms of getting a quality selection of DIFs, and in users being impressed with a Discovery search resulting in 'All cruises', 'All SeaWiFS data globally', etc. I believe all the MOLES records should have DIFs, and Discovery should do a better job like Google in indexing and ordering the results. E.g. if user searches 'chlor' then the aggregated datasets would be a sensible result, but if user searches 'chlor' + 1998 + North Sea then they should see a few matching cruises and a few closely matching satellite datasets (SeaWiFS North Sea 1998, SeaWiFS global 1998). Bryan thinks that this would be nice but won't be done in NDG2. I maintain there should be a relatively easy way to add this to Discovery, to avoid DP's having to mess with their datasets after they've gone to the trouble of releasing them. E.g. Are the DIF related record fields being used? Don't think so. Peter must write report if he wants this to happen in NDG2, and it must be really easy. 
     22