SAWG MTG Minutes 2009-02-06

From NGDCWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

In Attendance

  • Phil Jones
  • Dan Kowal
  • Tess Brandon
  • Don Collins
  • Jeremy Throwe
  • Scott McCormick
  • Anna Milan

CORS Draft SA Review

  • Covered issues that Dan and Phil encountered in the document.
  • Main items discussed:
    • Text Blocks needed before some table information sections if contextual information facilitates understanding of content in the tables.
    • Removal of OMB DOC Number.
    • Create an additional contacts block that identifies individuals responsible for document authorship.
    • Producer/Archive terminology alternatives. There are scenarios where "Producer" does not apply, and alternatives such as Data Provider are more appropropriate. Jeremy said that CLASS will have a meeting during the 2nd week in March to discuss terminology, and will revisit this issue later. The important thing is to be consistent throughout the document with how both entities are being addressed.
    • Error Contact info is best handled in another operational document that could be referenced.
    • How much metadata to include in the SA? The group revisited this discussion given the volume of information that was collected in the CORs draft. It appears that each situation may require a different approach based upon how much metadata is available and what kind of format is it in such as a FGDC or ISO metadata record. The Platform and Information section is one area where references to documentation or a metadata record could occur. In the case of CORS where an existing metadata record does not contain lineage information, the SA could act as a placeholder of that information such as in the appendix until the information is migrated to a standard location in the metadata record. Overall, the metadata fields in the SA are really a small subset and authors can point to references as needed.
    • Representation Information. Add a field to indicate "expected frequency of change" so as to flag what PDI items need checking to see if changes have occurred. Discussed who oversees PDI content given the likelihood of links and content changes. The periodic review of the SA should include some examination of PDI references to ensure their up-to-date status.

Additional Topics

  • Tess reported that the COPB would like to have the COWG (Bates, Casey and Kihn) review our SA progress and discuss the process of administering the SAs at the respective data centers.
  • Is a database appropriate for content capture for the SA? Discussed how this would facilitate the checking of links and finding other content as opposed to having static documents.
  • Phil explained an a Change Request Process that NCDC is investigating. It's in its early stages, but could have some application to the SA process.

Next meeting/action items

  • Feb. 20th, 1pm EST.
  • SAWG's interaction with the COWG.
  • Phil will finish the instruction content for the SA.
  • Database discussion.
Personal tools