Difference between revisions of "SAWG MTG Minutes 2011-11-18"

From NGDC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: ==In Attendance== * Dan Kowal * Phil Jones * Jeremy Throwe * Muhammad Rabi * Jonathan Blythe ==Roundtable== * NODC. ** Jonathan discussed his issues with "heritage products" produced by ...)
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 12:14, 18 November 2011

In Attendance

  • Dan Kowal
  • Phil Jones
  • Jeremy Throwe
  • Muhammad Rabi
  • Jonathan Blythe


  • NODC.
    • Jonathan discussed his issues with "heritage products" produced by NASA that are going into CLASS, Ocean Color data.
    • Tom Schott has a list of NOAA unique products.
    • Wants to know what's going to happen to these products now that NPP has come online. The new NPP low level data is comparable to what was produced before (which was produced by MODIS and/or SeaWIFS).
    • These products have been produced by IDPS, but no PI is overseeing them.
    • Phil inquired about the NPP SA and its treatment of Ocean Color EDRs.
    • Jeremy recommended that Jonathan reach out to Depaka for support.
    • Phil will look into this issue and get some information to Jonathan.
  • NCDC.
    • Phil working on data migration project to CLASS. Project broken into two prototypes: 1)Static data set (weather charts); 2) Operational (L2/3 Radar data). Working on requirements.
    • Number of SA projects, internal and external.
    • Discussed that he's compiled a list of 30 data set proposals that have no funding sources attached with them. Will review these at the next COWG mtg. NGDC will add ViPIR to the list.
  • NGDC.
    • Dan discussed data migration planning activities that are underway. NGDC is developing a checklist of steps to take migrating a data set to CLASS. DMSP data is the scope of this year's work. Waiting for a template from Scott that's being used by NCDC to define scope.
    • Discussed recent archive prototype project with NMFS for a new multibeam instrument (ME70) collecting acoustics data from AFSC. Will look at resources it takes to support this effort such that it informs NMFS of resources needed to support overall effort with NMFS science centers.


  • Alignment with other documents.
    • Jeremy said to think of the 3 documents (ICD, PUG, and SA) w/in the context of venn diagram. There's some amount of overlap, but most overlap will occur between the PUG and the SA.
    • Phil brought up the GMM (metadata model) as a 4th doc.
    • Muhammad suggested that it makes most sense for the GMM to go into the PUG, whatever the final outcome is.
    • Phil explained that the PUG is the authoritative source for the NetCDF; the GMM will provide the metadata attributes that go into the NetCDF.
    • Muhammad said some finality needed on what is the authoritative source; suggested it is the DTLs.
  • Dependencies for Section 6.0, Archive Access.
    • Phil suggested that we don't need to wait for the CDR to fill out this section.
    • Discussed that maybe a larger table in the appendix is warranted to provide details given the shear volume of elements to be described.
    • Phil added that Table 6.1.3 is not sufficient since we'll include additional information based on what's outlined in the functional requirements document.
    • Discussed minimum requirements in terms of where DI is obtained from, the file name, the metadata or both. CLASS confirmed that they can extract DI from multiple sources, but asked what the point is.
    • Phil brought up the cases in the past where date/times in data files did not jibe with information within the file metadata. CLASS concurred.
    • Question is what to do in the situation if inconsistencies were found between the two, and what the remedy would be. What rules should be defined if such a check was done?
    • Jeremy said that we're looking for internal consistency and would need to decide what takes precedence, what gets reported upstream. Phil suggested that the file metadata should trump the file name when these situations arise.
    • Dan proposed whether or not this type of checking should be captured in the Quality Measures Section. The group agreed that this section has more to do with quality assurance of the data and not so much the consistency of how the information is presented in the file name vs. the metadata.
    • Phil will share the draft table he's working on with Dan for capturing the DI metadata.
  • Alterations and Communications.
    • Dan wondered when updates to the SA should be communicated to all of the stakeholders.
    • Jeremy suggested that only major changes or impacts to one/more of the stakeholders should kick off a notification to all of the stakeholders. He brought up the example of changes in DI.
    • Muhammad said changes to the DTWT such as what will happen with SUVI, breaking it up by wavelengths would initiate and update/notification.
    • Dan will send Sharepoint info to Jeremy.
  • SA Schedule.
    • Jeremy discussed how other documents like the ICD are front-loaded and whereas the SA lags behind given that it deals with Archive and Access. CLASS would like it 6 mos. in advance of the Archive & Access CDR.
    • The data centers agreed that they will aim for May 2012 to have a first draft completed for review.
    • CLASS inquired if the structure will stay the same. Phil may want to change a few things so that the SA integrates better with the DTWT. Dan is not looking to change much except for removing some the granular info on the earth-focussed data descriptions. However, he will confer with Phil to ensure consistency across the SAs.

Next Meeting

  • Friday, December 9.