1. NSIDC CMR Metadata Reconciliation Meeting December 10-11, 2014

2. Agenda Day 1: – Ground Rules Review – Introduction and Overview – Expectations for this meeting – Process Review and Clarification – Metadata Holdings Review and Clarification Day 2: – Review and Brainstorm Options for Reconciliation – Identify Milestones for Decisions and Execution – Summarize and Close-out

3. Some Ground Rules/Requests Participate! All input is valued Ask Questions Share all relevant information Signal if we are going off-track Request a break if you need one Let me know how you think it is going

4. Introduction CMR Overview – https://wiki.earthdata.nasa.gov/display/CMR/Common+M etadata+Repository+Home https://wiki.earthdata.nasa.gov/display/CMR/Common+M etadata+Repository+Home NSIDC’s Role as a Pathfinder DAAC Goals of this Effort – My Role – Link to Notes for Session: ADD ME Round the Room – Name and Role

5. Unified Metadata Model ECHO 10GCMD DIFEMS ISO 19115 Atom JSON … Ingest Adapter UMM-C … … UMM-G ECHO 10 UMM-S GCMD SERF UMM-V Visualization (GIBS) UMM-P Parameters/Variables (Giovanni AESIR) UMM-? Future Concepts

6. One submission per product/collection – ECHO or GCMD DIF record CMR as the authoritative source Short Name + Version/Entry ID Unification UMM Compliant (Collections and Granules) – Provisional UMM-C: May include products not in EMS/ECHO/GCMD BEDI/CDI Datasets are High Priority CMR Metadata Reconciliation End Goals PlanMergeClean

7. Expectations for this Meeting Metadata Format Selection CMR Submission Process Selection Implementation Overview and Milestones Timeline for Completion

8. Process Review and Clarification GCMD – Record Submission via OAI-PMH, every two weeks NSIDCV0 – FTP to ECHO – Frequency? NSIDC_ECS – BMGT Export via REST – Frequency? Additional Details in Reconciliation Package

9. ECHO/GCMD Submission Process Questions Are these processes correct/current? Discrepancies or errors in these processes should be raised/clarified prior to reconciliation meeting. Is there a preferred ingest method for CMR? – REST from EDB? – BMGT REST? – OAI-PMH? (higher frequency than twice monthly might be required) Are the points of contact correct?

10. Metadata Holdings Review and Clarification Quick Identifiers Overview NSIDC_ECS NSIDCV0 GCMD Questions from the CMR Team

11. Quick Identifiers Overview ECHO Dataset ID is roughly equivalent to the GCMD Entry Title. ECHO Short Name is roughly equivalent to the GCMD Entry ID. ECHO has an internal id (the catalog item id or echo_collection_id for collections) which is going to be equivalent to the CMR concept Id. This is not the same as any Entry ID, Entry Title, Short Name, Long Name or Dataset ID. The concept id is internal and mostly opaque (you can tell what the concept is and who the provider is, but otherwise, there is no meaning to the number). Finally a link, that should clear some stuff up: https://wiki.earthdata.nasa.gov/display/echo/ECHO+REST+Search+Guide#ECHORESTS earchGuide-AppendixB– NamethatData:SortingOutShortName,LongNameandEveryIdentifierinBetween

12. ECHO Provider: NSIDC_ECS 245 Collections 60 with no Associated DIF Entry ID (see Appendix A for details) 3 with Associated DIF Entry ID ‘null’ 101 unmatched Entry ID/Short Name All Granules associated to Parent Collection via Dataset ID

13. ECHO Provider: NSIDCV0 340 Collections 3 Collections have Associated DIF Entry IDs that are not found in GCMD (See Appendix A for details) All other Short Name/Entry IDs mapped between DIF and ECHO match exactly No granule metadata exists for NSIDCV0

14. GCMD Metadata Holdings 519 Collections GCMD does not catalog granule level metadata Of the 519 collections, 79 do not have associated ECHO entries (based on the “Associated DIF Entry ID” described in the previous ECHO section) Of those 79 collections that are not associated via the expected mechanisms, 18 have ECHO collections with matching short names (See Appendix B for details)

15. Metadata Holdings Questions Do these collection counts seem correct based on your knowledge? Is there an easy way to account for the missing metadata reported? Does any collection metadata not currently part of the NSIDC_DAAC, NSIDC_ECS or NSIDCV0 belong in the CMR? Are the Data Center Names in use by GCMD clear and useful? ECHO only provides Archive and Processing Center, are these sufficient for NSIDC’s needs? Should additional roles, such as Distributor, be included? Will granule metadata ever be ingested for NSIDCV0 collections? Some collections in ECHO have multiple versions and only one is linked to GCMD, should the CMR contain both? How might the CMR Entry ID change to reflect this? It would probably be easiest to change the Entry ID to include a version number (like “ILNSA1BV1” and “ILNSA1BV2”). Would this be sufficient?

16. More Metadata Holdings Questions As part of reconciliation, a decision needs to be made on what metadata format to be used for CMR ingest. NSIDC could choose all DIF format, all ECHO format or potentially a mixture of both, depending on circumstances and suitability. If DIF were extended to enable more complex geometries, would that change your recommendation for metadata format reconciliation? If DIF were extended to facilitate granules, would that change your recommendation for metadata format reconciliation? Does the EDB have entries for collections of collections as described in the “MOD10A2V5” vs. “MOD10A2” subsection? Should these collections of collections be preserved as part of the CMR?

17. Made with wurdle.com Questions?