# Presentation: 491181

## NCDC’s Detailed Entity & Attribute Metadata

**Chris Fenimore**
**Philip Jones**
- NESDIS ITAT
- December 18, 2006

## Overview

- Current State
- Examples of E & A Metadata Work with Pros and Cons for each
- Discussion

## Current State

- Not properly used according to FGDC
- Hard to interpret (hundreds of parameters)
- Not machine readable

**Notes:**
The current state of NCDC’s metadata is partial at best. Enhancing the metadata consists of converting the current records from FGDC Classic to FGDC RSE. 

The current state does not allow for automated programs to search within the Entity and Attribute section nor has the current state taken full advantage of the intended use of this FGDC section.

## Original “Syntax” Approach

_**Pro’s**_
- Allows for Native Name info
- Gives Coding format (Positioning / Field Length)
_**Con’s**_
- No place for Standard Names
- Describes dbase design and logical consistency not data content --Not intended use (Meaning vs. Format)
_**Conclusions**_
- Use Semantic (meaning) approach
- Only list core data attributes –not station ids, remarks, etc.
- Use Standard Names for Attributes
- Standard Name Issue: Native Names usually not well represented by the available Standard Names.

**Notes:**
Syntax – “patterned relations” – Sequence, order, or arrangement.

Initially we were thinking that we would have to provide information on every data parameter given in each data set.
Headers – Location, Time Period, etc.
Flags – Data Quality Indicators
Examples – Code snippets and their meanings

## EDOMV - Proposal A

- Native Name as (repeating)
- _Enumerated_ _Domain Value_ of the Attribute

- GCMD/CF Standard Name as _Attribute_ _Label_, _Definition_, & _Source_

**Notes:**
The purpose of this slide was to show the intended use of the E&A section. 

## EDOMV - Proposal A

_**Pro’s**_
- GCMD/CF Standard Names
- Data discovery
- Flexible
_**Con’s**_
- Native Names as enumerated domain values only
- Can not use range domain values – means can not use Units, Resolution, or Scaling Fields
- May force a poor Native Name-Standard Name relationship
- Lack of GCMD support

**Notes:**
Semantic approach will allow for machine processing on a global scale. The machine and the human eye will be able to interpret and distinguish between the Parent and the Child. 

Parent = Keyword
Child/children = Native names 

The attribute label containing the Keyword would be able to be queried. The enumerated domain values would then give the user a more specific answer to the query.

Con’s
If range values were documented, this metadata structure would not allow for their use.

## Paired Attribute - Proposal B

- Selected GCMD/CF Standard Names and the Native Names as the _Attributes_

- _Enumerated_ _Domain_ or_ Range_ _Domain_ for GCMD/CF Standard Names and Native Names

- _Domain_ _Values_ for GCMD/CF Standard Names dependent on values from Native Names

**Notes:**
The purpose of this slide was to show the intended use of the E&A section. 

## Paired Attribute - Proposal B

_**Pro’s**_
- Choice between Type of Attribute Domain Value for either Standard and Native Name Attributes
_**Con’s**_
- Redundant info – possible meaning overlap between Native Names and Standard Names
- Domain Values mandatory, but not all documentation gives an element’s range values –could guess range values or put “Unknown”

## Questions?

- Where does NOAA/NCDC want to go?
- ISO 19115-2
- Data Discovery Tools (build metadata to better serve the end result)
- How does NOAA/NCDC get there?
- Detailed E&A’s (Consistency? Or custom fit for each record?
- Clearinghouse Harvest

**Notes:**
I would like to be able to answer 3 questions at the end of this presentation. The first is, at this point in time, where is NCDC in terms of FGDC metadata? 
Currently,  the E&A section is a jumble of parameters intertwined with their meanings and positions. We do not take advantage of all the tags available, therefore, data discovery is limited and harvesting is complicated. (Large EA over’s).

We certainly don’t have a complete library of records. It is a federal mandate to create an FGDC compliant metadata record for every dataset and product that NCDC archives. This includes ongoing studies and also historical studies. I believe in the data discovery since, we should probably place more emphasis on the recent datasets and products. These are in fact the hottest item using the latest and greatest in technology. That’s what the majority of users are looking for.

There are currently around 670 FGDC assigned ID’s.
Compared that to the 450 or so records that are imported into NMMR.
We do have a good grasp of data sets with respect to their FGDC assignments, but how many new products have been developed that have not been assigned ID’s?

NCDC can only improve on the existing metadata. Gaps in our metadata exist throughout every record. Areas that provide important information like Data Quality, Spatial Data Organization, Spatial Reference, and Entity and Attributes all should be used to provide easily accessible information to the data user community. Eventually NCDC will convert all metadata to the ISO-19115 standard. So if we start enhancing our metadata now, we may alleviate some of the parsing issues once the ISO standard is accepted by NOAA.

Using standard keywords, our metadata will be machine readable, thus allowing the metadata to be integrated with data discovery tools. These Data Discovery Tools can be GIS Map Viewers, the CDO, Portals, Inventory Systems, etc.

When NCDC has incorporated these standards we will be able to harvest to various clearinghouses. Through NMMR, GOS and GCMD will be able to provide the World Wide user community not only knowledge about what type of data NCDC provides but also access to that data.

Create detailed Entity and Attributes sections.
Create a metadata record for every dataset or product.
Set up a routine harvest from NMMR to NASA’s GCMD and GOS.

What we have done so far in only small drops in the bucket to the ultimate goal, but those small drops has the potential to not only increase the visibility of NCDC’s data, but also, increase the usability of NCDC’s metadata.